The Secretary of State was asked-

John Hayes: In anticipation of my hon. Friend's question, and because I know of her passionate interest in and advocacy of this subject, I have asked the National Apprenticeship Service to take further the work that I know she wants to be completed on offering a new motor race technician qualification. We will do that work, because we understand the points she makes, the value of that industry and its importance to our whole country.

Barry Sheerman: The Minister will know that we are all in favour of apprenticeships these days-we welcome the coalition to the cause-but the fact is that this is all something of a fig leaf, given that all the other educational policies seem to be falling apart. Higher education is in meltdown, but all we hear about is apprenticeships and the university technical colleges. This is a fig leaf covering up the lack of policy across the whole education and skills debate.

Andrew Love: The Government's flagship policy on employment and small businesses is the national insurance holiday for all companies outside London and the south-east. We heard only yesterday from Treasury officials that that has created only thousands of jobs, so is it time to go back to the drawing board on this policy?

Tony Lloyd: It is self-evident that if every part of this country is to take advantage of the strong future in low-carbon technologies, we need investment in skills and research and, of course, access to finance. We heard some platitudes in answer to the first set of questions from the Minister's colleague, but will the Minister tell us in hard terms what will be done to ensure that young people get those skills, that we have the research and that we have access to a finance system that knows that technologies north of Watford are worth investing in?

Pat McFadden: We are about to enter a new financial year, so will the Minister take the opportunity to reconsider the Government's denial of the loan to Sheffield Forgemasters that the Labour Government planned to boost our position in civil nuclear trade? More broadly, will he confirm that the Government are still committed to a new generation of nuclear power stations given the awful unfolding tragedy in Japan and the comments made by the Deputy Prime Minister to journalists?

Stephen Metcalfe: What steps he is taking to increase United Kingdom Trade and Investment's share of world trade.

Tim Farron: More than 50% of dairy farms in the UK closed under the previous Labour Government yet demand for dairy products across the world is rocketing. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out what proposals we have to launch an ambitious plan to export dairy products across the world?

Vincent Cable: Many of the problems of the dairy industry relate to the system of EU CAP financing, but I will look at the specific issue described by my hon. Friend and see what we can do to promote it.

Sharon Hodgson: I am very pleased to hear that the Minister got a positive response-I would expect nothing less of the friendly north-east. The Chancellor said in his Budget statement last Wednesday that there would be an enterprise zone on Tyneside, but the Red Book refers to an enterprise zone in the North Eastern local enterprise partnership, and I am sure the Minister is aware that they are not one and the same. The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change told the  Sunderland Echo that Sunderland had a really good chance of getting an enterprise zone. Will the Minister confirm that the Chancellor misled the House last week and that a decision has not yet been made on where-

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sure the hon. Lady means "inadvertently" misled.

Nadhim Zahawi: Like the North Eastern local enterprise partnership, Coventry and Warwickshire local enterprise partnership would very much like to talk to the Minister about our proposal for an enterprise zone-

Mr Speaker: Order. That was a nice try but the hon. Gentleman's question must specifically relate to the north-east, about which I thought the hon. Gentleman probably had extensive knowledge.

Nick Brown: Is not the danger of the Minister's enterprise zone policy that it enriches landlords and developers by drawing economic activity from one area to another? When considering locations for the north-east, will he focus on the creation of jobs in industrial areas?

Mark Prisk: We are absolutely committed to doing precisely that. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is quite so negative; at is not what they are saying in Sunderland and Salford.

Barbara Keeley: I thank the Minister for that answer, which I did not hear much of. Walkden citizens advice bureau, which is in Salford, serves an area in the 7% most deprived in the country and has done since 1939, but it is now under threat because of uncertainty about funding and because of cuts. Will the Minister call a halt to the cuts in funding for advice services, and will he conduct an urgent review on the future of the funding of those vital organisations?

Nia Griffith: At a recent meeting I chaired, representatives from individual CAB and other advice centres from across the country gave the loud and clear message that the current uncertainty about the funding of advice services means that advice service centres are closing their doors, expert advice workers are being made redundant and vulnerable people will soon have nowhere to turn for advice. It is all very well the Minister's blaming the closure of individual CABs on local government decisions, but those decisions are often taken in the light of extreme uncertainty about the future of other funding streams. His Government admits that there is much cause for concern, so why has he not sought an immediate moratorium on all cuts to Government funding streams for advice services for the coming financial year in order to allow time for a longer-term strategy to be developed?

Andrew Percy: The CABs in Goole and Scunthorpe provide excellent advice to my constituents on debt-related issues. While I welcome the money that has been announced, is it not time that we tried to achieve a national approach, because CABs have a battle, year in, year out, to secure funding, which clearly does not help our constituents.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman, like me, is fond of Yeats, who said:
	"Do not wait to strike till the iron is hot; but make it hot by striking."
	That is what we have done. The hon. Gentleman is right. I have followed him, and he is a hard act to follow, because he was a very competent Minister. I can tell the House-and I know that you, Mr Speaker, will be pleased to hear it-that the Statistical First Release published today illustrates that we are likely, or certainly on target, to reach the ambitions I have set out, which is good news for the hon. Gentleman, good news for me and good news for Britain.

John Hayes: The figures will speak louder than any words-the hon. Gentleman's words or even my own.

George Freeman: I thank the Minister for his reply and congratulate him on his commitment to business. Last week's Budget set out a clear strategy for growth based on science, innovation and enterprise, particularly in my area, the biotech corridor between Cambridge and Norwich. Does he agree that the challenge is to ensure that our leading research institutes link up with industry so that our science is driven around the world in the three biggest markets: food, energy and medicine?

Mark Prisk: My hon. Friend is an outstanding champion in this field, and I was pleased that we were able to support Norwich research park in that context, for which he has fought and argued for many months. Our plan is about accelerating innovation, investing in the way collaboration takes place and ensuring that we retain this country's world-class role in life sciences and biotechnology.

Peter Bone: We have an absolutely splendid coalition team in DBIS, led by a fantastic Secretary of State. In the past, energy was always the responsibility of the Business Department. Surely it should come back to that Department so that we can send out the message that we do care about business in relation to energy, and I could not think of a better set of people to look after it.

Vincent Cable: I am very flattered by the suggestion, if a little surprised, but I am already fully employed with my existing duties. In my recent conversation with my counterpart at DECC, we agreed that considerable progress had been made with Ofgem's recent report on opening up competition and benefiting consumers, both industrial and personal.

Gordon Banks: The Secretary of State's very own figures show that he is not a deregulator but a regulator. It is 53-in, 3-out, not one-in, one-out, but apparently there is hope on the horizon, because he is going to repeal another regulation, one introduced to seize German-owned property after the war. I am sure Chancellor Merkel will be happy about that, but the point will be lost on UK business.
	We hear from the Secretary of State about his plans to review 21,000 business regulations, but at this rate it will take more than 7,000 years to achieve that aim-and looking at the Secretary of State I do not think he has the time on his side. When will he ditch his rhetoric and begin practising what he preaches before it is too late?

Edward Davey: I, personally, have not had any recent discussions with my international counterparts on the matter, but the Government are committed to greater transparency through corporate reporting. Internationally, the Treasury is leading the Government's efforts with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's task force on tax and development, which is exploring the issues of country-by-country reporting on tax and profits.

Margaret Curran: In the light of his answer, the Minister will be aware of the OECD's recognition that poor countries lose more money each year to corporate tax-dodging than they receive in aid, and Christian Aid estimates that to amount to $160 billion. May I ask him to have a conversation with the Secretary of State? The right hon. Gentleman said in opposition:
	"New accounting standards are needed to force multinational companies to declare publicly the profits they make and the taxes they pay in every country in which they operate. That way anomalies will be quickly spotted."
	Can I reasonably assume that, in the light of his commitment to the issue, the Government will raise it at the G20 in November?

Edward Davey: I think that the Government-both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Chancellor-actually have a very good record on the issue. We are contributing to the OECD taskforce, because it is about ensuring not just that UK companies report their profits as they need to, but that we improve corporate performance throughout the world.

Stephen Mosley: I welcome the announcement in last week's Budget of the extra £100 million in capital spending, including the £10 million at Daresbury. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that £100 million comes from the permanent bank levy, which was introduced by this coalition Government against opposition from Labour Members?

Vincent Cable: I can confirm that. Of course, the bank levy has a good economic basis because it is the payment that the banks make for the protection that the state provides for banks that are too big to fail. The £100 million is new money-new capital investment-and I am delighted that my hon. Friend's campaign for Daresbury has borne fruit in this way.

Chi Onwurah: In November, the Chancellor took £1.4 billion out of capital investment for science. Last week, he gave back about £100 million-strangely, all of it to Conservative constituencies. Our country's leading reputation in science deserves better than that. When this week's Royal Society report, "Knowledge, networks and nations", spelled out the rise of China, India, Korea and Brazil as science superpowers, it was unable to set out the UK's long-term plan because there is not one. Will the Secretary of State prevail on the Chancellor to agree a long-term plan for science funding, as we had under Labour?

Diana Johnson: Hull university is reported to be planning to charge up to the £9,000 limit. Combined with this week's announcement about the slashing by two thirds of the education maintenance allowance support to students, how will this help to attract more students from areas such as Hull to university, bearing in mind the excellent progress that was made under the last Labour Government?

Gareth Thomas: We have had the damaging row over student visas-still not sorted-and a Treasury growth paper that largely ignored the central role that universities have to offer for our economic future. However, the most serious problem is the considerable hole the Government are now staring at in their higher education budget-all because they ignored the many independent experts who warned, even before the tuition fees vote, that universities would charge close to the maximum fee level. Given the huge uncertainties facing university finances, all of them Government-created, does the Secretary of State not recognise that this House is entitled to know how that funding gap will be plugged?

Vincent Cable: First, the hon. Gentleman is terribly behind the times. He may not have listened to the Home Secretary's statement on student visas, but she made it absolutely clear that there is no cap on student visas and that the study to work route is still available for overseas students. The universities have acknowledged that. There is no hole in the finances. If he had followed the public announcements that universities have made, he would have seen that of the 36 that we are aware of, 13 propose to charge up to the maximum. That is well below the 80% quoted by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. Of those universities, many will have substantial fee remission on the Oxford model.

Mark Prisk: Small businesses are vital to the economy and to future employment. That is why we have tackled the cost of employment by reversing the last Government's plans for a payroll tax increase, and why the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey) has launched a comprehensive review of employment law to make the system easier and fairer for employees and employers.

David Rutley: I was pleased to see that the Federation of Small Businesses welcomed the Government's three-year moratorium on new domestic legislation for micro-businesses. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that that and other measures to reduce the regulatory burden and increase job creation by small and medium-sized enterprises will be taken forward at pace, and that there will be regular updates to the House on their progress?

Robert Flello: One way to increase employment in small and medium-sized businesses in Stoke-on-Trent would be for us to have an enterprise zone. Following the Prime Minister's very positive response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) yesterday and the extensive meetings that north Staffs MPs have had with the Secretary of State, can the Minister give some comfort to people in north Staffordshire that the local enterprise partnership will be looked on favourably, and could we have a meeting?

Mark Prisk: The hon. Gentleman is right that enterprise zones will be advantageous for small businesses. There is a second opportunity for 10 further enterprise zones. We are happy to talk to the local enterprise partnership in that area to ensure that it is able to put forward a positive dialogue. If the hon. Gentleman and other Members wish to participate in that, I suspect that my diary secretary will not be thrilled, but I am happy to see them.

Bridget Phillipson: I thank the Minister for that answer. In opposition, the Secretary of State was a keen supporter of global action to tackle corporate tax dodging in developing countries, but the Department's recent White Paper did not include a single reference to it. When will the Government put that right?

Jim Shannon: Last week we had a debate in Westminster Hall on the pig industry, and Members indicated clearly that if there was no immediate action to restore the balance between supermarkets' profits and the profitability of farmers, many farmers would go out of business. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that that does not happen?

Edward Davey: I may have to refer the hon. Gentleman to Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who are obviously responsible for agriculture. We should be clear that the groceries code adjudicator will not be a price regulator-that has never been proposed. It will be there to enforce the groceries supply code of practice. That is very important, because it is in the interests not just of the producers and farmers who supply the large supermarkets but of consumers.

Kevin Brennan: On tuition fees, has the Secretary of State read the reports of the Deputy Prime Minister's visit to Mexico, where he was humiliated first by a Mexican student who said that he could no longer afford to come and study in Britain, and then by the Mexican President, who said that British students should go to study in Mexico instead? Is the Secretary of State in any way embarrassed by the fact that his policy on tuition fees has become a laughing stock across the world?

Vincent Cable: I was not in Mexico, I was in another country-Wales-discussing the issue. The simple truth is that, as I am sure we have communicated to the Mexican authorities, Mexican students are welcome to come to this country and there is no cap on the number of overseas students.

Vincent Cable: In our Dengist phase, the LEPs are doing extremely well in constructing business-led leadership at local level. The process by which RDA assets are allocated is set out in the White Paper. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, some of the RDAs have negative net worth, so the issue of asset distribution does not apply. There will be different allocations, and my departmental officials are working through the RDAs' legacy carefully.

John Denham: The Secretary of State does not seem to know what is on his own website, which makes it very clear that he has blocked the transfer of those assets to local authorities. Will he confirm that the assets of RDAs that will now be sold will be worth more than the investment in enterprise zones? Is not the Conservative leader of Fareham council, who heads the Solent LEP, right when he says:
	"Selling them at this time in the economic cycle is the worst possible solution. Treasury is looking for quick wins but that will undermine the growth agenda. We are meant to be focusing on growth but that will undermine the growth agenda"?
	Why does the Secretary of State believe that Whitehall knows best, or has he been overruled yet again by the Treasury, who are the people who really run his Department?

Vincent Cable: The right hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that those are taxpayers' assets, the disposal of which should be done in a way that produces best value for money for the taxpayer. Some will be disposed of and sold, and some will be transferred when that will produce a good outcome. The process is being carefully worked through at departmental level, and it will produce a sensible outcome that remains supportive of local initiatives through the local enterprise partnerships.

Vincent Cable: Technology innovation centres are proving extremely welcome in the research community because they represent a bridge between academic research and business application. The first of those-the advanced manufacturing TIC-has been launched, and I went to Rotherham at its outset. Others are being prepared, and I am sure that the one in my hon. Friend's constituency will be carefully considered by the TSB.

Clive Betts: On enterprise zones, do the Government agree that it is important that subsidies are not given simply to jobs and development that would have happened anyway? It is fairly easy to see how the Government could stop, and take measures to prevent, a firm from simply transferring to an enterprise zone with public money, but if a firm decides to expand into an enterprise zone, or if a new firm is created in one, how can the Government ensure that money is not simply given to a development and jobs that would have existed without the subsidy?

Elizabeth Truss: Since 1997, the proportion of A-level students studying core academic subjects has fallen, despite the fact that those subjects are preferred by universities. I think that that is partly down to the equivalence of UCAS points and the league tables. What action will the Minister take to ensure that universities make specific subject offers rather than points offers, and that they publish students' results?

John Hayes: My hon. Friend knows that universities are independent organisations and that they decide which offer they make to applicants. Nevertheless, the Government are working with UCAS to explore how it can publish for each course the most popular qualifications of previously accepted applicants. We welcome the Russell group publication, "Informed Choices", which includes advice on subjects. Universities, as Disraeli said, should be places of life, liberty and learning.

Yvonne Fovargue: There are still high numbers of rogue operators in the fee-paying debt management industry and they often charge high amounts and pay not one penny to creditors. Does the Minister agree with the argument advanced in Wednesday's  Daily Mirror by the free advice sector that it is no longer tenable to stand by and fail to protect vulnerable individuals from those companies?

Edward Davey: The hon. Lady is right to raise this matter. She will know from her time working in the citizens advice bureau in her area how significant this matter is. Some debt advice agencies out there-frankly-do not act in an acceptable way. We are considering this issue under the consumer credit and personal insolvency review, and will make an announcement after the Easter recess.

Bob Blackman: I am all in favour of encouraging enterprise and start-up businesses. However, what will my hon. Friend do about the current scandal of businesses trading, taking people's money, closing down overnight, then starting up the next day with the same directors and defaulting on all due payments? That is a scandal in society and we must stop it.

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is exactly right, so I hope he welcomes the statement that I have made today on this very issue. Following a consultation launched by the previous Government, we have concluded that action needs to be taken on phoenix companies when assets are sold to connected parties without open marketing. Our proposals, which are in the statement, include insolvency practitioners giving three days' notice to all creditors before the sale, which we think will be valuable.

Vincent Cable: The hon. Gentleman is right that manufacturing is a success story. It is now growing at double-digit levels annually, in stark contrast with what happened in the period after 1997, when we had a hollowing out of manufacturing more rapid than anywhere else in the world. However, he is right that there is a threat to small and medium-sized enterprises in particular from bank-lending practices. We have secured commitments to 15% more lending from the banks, but much more needs to be done.

Vincent Cable: The hon. Gentleman might be confusing the coming year with the year for which fee levels are being announced. However, as I said earlier, there is a wide distribution of proposed charge levels by the universities that have already made announcements-less than a quarter of all universities-and this reflects the policy that we introduced.

James Clappison: In the light of the excellent question from my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson), surely it is a matter for universities to decide who to admit on individual merit, not for us to have a central Government control model-a command and control model-that inevitably produces unfair discrimination. We are trying to build a big society, not recreate the Soviet Union, are we not?

Vincent Cable: There is no command and control. Indeed, we are seeking to free universities from the complex, rather Stalinist system that we inherited. None the less, it is right that the Office for Fair Access judge universities that wish to charge the top rate according to its access criteria.

Ben Bradshaw: May I thank the Minister for the role that he has played and congratulate Exeter's Labour-led council on its doggedness in ensuring that Exeter has a guaranteed place on the Devon and Cornwall LEP? Will he urge the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) to give urgent and positive attention to the bid for superfast broadband money, which has been submitted today and is supported by every Member of Parliament in Devon and Somerset?

Mark Prisk: We have issued a written statement today precisely on the new Heart of the South West local enterprise partnership for Devon and Somerset, as I think the right hon. Gentleman meant. I am grateful to him for his collaborative help on the scheme, which we are going to get under way. It is the next local enterprise partnership, and I shall certainly pass on his point to the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey).

Several hon. Members: rose -

Stephen O'Brien: Whatever events are taking place elsewhere in the world, Britain has not forgotten the people of Ivory Coast or Liberia. The Government are deeply concerned about the ongoing serious political crisis in Ivory Coast, the risk of regional instability, and the humanitarian impact on those who have been displaced by the violence or otherwise affected. The latest information we have is that almost 500 lives are estimated to have been lost as a result. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced last Friday that Britain would provide a significant emergency aid package to help tens of thousands of people affected by fierce fighting and violence who are in urgent need in Ivory Coast and Liberia.
	In Liberia, Britain's support will provide food, shelter and basic services to 15,000 refugees; food, water and improved sanitation systems to 5,000 people living in border villages that have been overwhelmed by the refugee influx; and assistance for UNICEF's work in ensuring that thousands of women and children affected by the crisis are protected from violence, abuse and exploitation. In Ivory Coast, Britain is planning to supply £8 million of aid to provide 25,000 displaced men, women and children with food for six months; tents for 15,000 people; and support to treat 10,000 children and adults for malnutrition, and help 3,000 west African nationals return to their home countries. Access to populations in conflicted areas remains extremely difficult, and fighting is hindering the humanitarian response. Our support is being delivered through trusted UN and NGO partners. In addition to our support, I hope and plan to meet leading NGOs working in Ivory Coast and Liberia shortly before I leave for Liberia to see for myself the facts on the ground.

Mark Lazarowicz: I thank the Minister for his answer. The humanitarian situation in Ivory Coast is clearly becoming more desperate by the day and, as he said, is increasingly affecting neighbouring countries in west Africa. As well as in Liberia, there are now refugees from Ivory Coast in Togo and Ghana. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that 1 million people have already fled their homes, with the potential for up to 500,000 more refugees to arrive in Liberia alone over the next two months.
	The Opposition certainly welcome the emergency assistance that the UK has given so far, but in view of what is obviously a deteriorating situation, can the Minister say how much of the assistance announced by the UK has been able to reach the countries concerned? What efforts are being made to reach the more remote areas of Ivory Coast, where tens of thousands are reported to be trapped, with no access to humanitarian assistance or medical supplies? Can he give us an update on how the rest of the international community is responding, given that the two UN emergency appeals so far have been grossly underfunded?
	What steps are the Government taking to continue to monitor the situation in Ivory Coast and the neighbouring states, and are we in a position to provide more emergency assistance immediately any such need is identified? What discussions are the Government having with our international partners, particularly in the European Union, to ensure that our assistance efforts are co-ordinated with those of other countries? Is any consideration being given to strengthening the UN peacekeeping presence in Ivory Coast? Can the Minister give the House an update on the steps being taken by the international community to resolve the underlying conflict and to ensure that the outgoing regime respects the result of last year's presidential elections?

Stephen O'Brien: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising those questions. He is absolutely right to focus on the extreme difficulty in accessing certain areas, particularly around Abidjan on the coast, where harassment, even of the international community, appears to be growing. In general, aid agencies have had some access to the north and the west of Côte d'Ivoire, though access to other parts of the country is changing on a daily basis. About 117,000 refugees have now crossed the border into Liberia, where access is not a significant issue at the moment.
	We are seeking to produce the necessary humanitarian assistance, channelled through our tried and trusted UN and humanitarian non-governmental organisation partners. We have had direct contact with the NGOs. Indeed, officials in my Department are meeting representatives of Save the Children and Oxfam this morning, and the Foreign Secretary will meet representatives of leading British NGOs next week. He and the Minister of State will be meeting the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross. I am trying to organise a meeting with the NGOs that are leading the delivery of humanitarian responses in Côte d'Ivoire and Liberia before I leave for Liberia.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about other diplomatic and political activity. There is an enormous amount of activity taking place within a number of bodies. The UK strongly supports the position taken by the Economic Community of West African States-ECOWAS-in seeking to co-ordinate supportive action in the United Nations and the European Union for ECOWAS. We also support what is going on in the African Union. It is important that the UN, which passed Security Council resolution 1975 last night, is now able to use that resolution as its authority to ensure that assistance is given within the context of finding the most peaceful means of allowing the duly elected President Ouattara to take his proper place in Côte d'Ivoire. In the meantime, we have to deal with the difficulties along the western side of the country, where the refugees are flowing into Liberia, as well as the serious humanitarian crisis in Côte d'Ivoire itself.
	Initiatives are also being taken by the African Union in an effort to find a peaceful outcome to the crisis. It has been active in meeting and drawing up proposals, but, as we speak, a number of violent actions are taking place throughout Côte d'Ivoire, and the concern is that the peace processes are not as yet ahead of the actions on the ground. I compliment the African Union on its actions, however, and it is important that we recognise that the UN Security Council resolution does not impede the AU's freedom to continue its process. The resolution neither competes with nor substitutes for that activity; it is a complementary process, and the sanctions imposed by the Security Council are designed to be persuasive rather than punitive, and will not cut across the AU process.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned funding. The $32.7 million UN appeal for Ivory Coast and for neighbouring countries, excluding Liberia, is currently fully funded, but an appeal revision is under way, reflecting the significant increase in humanitarian need. The $146 million UN appeal for Liberia is just 41% funded, and overall the response is reaching only a small proportion of those affected and displaced by the conflict. We have recently supported an uplift of 2,000 troops in the UN peacekeeping mission, the United Nations Operation in Côte d'Ivoire, and they will be coming through in the next few weeks.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Tony Baldry: I commend the fact that the UK Government are in the vanguard of funding the relief effort for Liberia and Ivory Coast, but is it not important that we encourage the African Union not just to engage to try to find a peaceful solution to disputes such as the one in Côte d'Ivoire, but to develop the logistical capacity to do more in these humanitarian situations in the future? It is fine for the G7 countries to fund the effort, but there needs to be more capacity within Africa to sort out the challenges that Africa faces.

Hugh Bayley: I welcome the Government's humanitarian aid and the passage of Security Council resolution 1975. Does the Minister believe that there are enough UN troops on the ground? I am pleased to see beside him the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), who has responsibility for Africa. Taking a political track through the EU and bilaterally, what is the UK doing to address the problem of the polarisation between the north and south of the country in the longer term?

Stephen O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman, with his expert knowledge, is right to highlight those issues. He gives me the opportunity to make the important point that Her Majesty's Government are working right across a number of Departments, not least through my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for Africa. The hon. Gentleman is also right about the north-south divide in the country, especially as we hear that troops loyal to President Ouattara are now only about 120 km north of the port of San Pedro, and may have captured Yamoussoukro, the political capital. It is vital to find a way of pulling together a political process that unites a riven faction that has caused desperate humanitarian crises in the past.

Richard Fuller: I welcome the Minister's statement on the provision of humanitarian relief and I note the UN resolution, but does he accept that what is really needed is a political solution that ejects Laurent Gbagbo from the presidency? This is a man who has rebuffed his people, rebuffed the Economic Community of West African States and rebuffed the African Union and is rebuffing the United Nations. Does the Minister accept that in this situation we have not done enough and not moved fast enough, and that this Government should do more to make sure that there is a peaceful resolution?

Stephen O'Brien: Of course a political and peaceful solution has to be the overriding and most desirable outcome, but we have to deal with the facts on the ground as we know them to be. Enormous initiatives are taking place across ECOWAS, the African Union, the European Union and the United Nations. I know that the Foreign Secretary spoke to President Ouattara on 21 March and discussed the need for firm action in the UN against those who obstruct the African Union's attempts to broker a peaceful transfer of power, and on 25 March my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development spoke to President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia to ensure that we address the humanitarian concerns developing in that country.

Tony Lloyd: The Minister rightly mentioned the need for a political solution and the role of the African Union. In fact, ECOWAS has a well deserved reputation for efficient delivery on the ground. Will the Minister tell us whether the Minister with responsibility for Africa has been in active discussion with ECOWAS so that we can engage further with it to deliver practical support for that political solution?

Henry Smith: I welcome the Government's efforts. The Minister mentioned assistance to refugees. Will he expand on that and explain what assistance the Government are providing not only for refugees from Côte d'Ivoire in west Africa, but for refugees in this country as well?

Stephen O'Brien: As I mentioned in my opening remarks, at this stage, when thousands of people are crossing the border westwards from Côte d'Ivoire to Liberia, the principal task is to provide shelter, potable water and improved sanitation systems, to ensure their survival and also the protection of thousands of children and women from violence, abuse and exploitation. It is equally important to recognise that helping west African and, indeed, other nationals to return home is part of the humanitarian response. My hon. Friend is right to highlight those issues.

Martin Horwood: I welcome the humanitarian assistance, but experience in Africa suggests that very large refugee camps invariably become difficult and dangerous places, especially for the most vulnerable. May I urge Ministers to redouble their efforts to remove people's reasons for leaving the country in the first place, and to try to prevent it if possible? May I also urge them to ensure that when assistance is provided for the camps, the needs of the most vulnerable-particularly the elderly, women and children-are given priority?

Stephen O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I know from my recent visit to the Dadaab refugee camp in Kenya, on the border with Somalia, that a large refugee camp is extremely difficult to manage. In Liberia, which I shall visit shortly, I hope to go to where the refugees are to see what the conditions are like and how they can best be managed in a humanitarian way. As for the refugees' reasons for leaving the country, they are very plain: deep fear, deep instability, and the aggression that is being directed at their own people. All those factors are causing them to flee for their own safety. Clearly, the underlying aim must be to return Côte d'Ivoire to political stability and some semblance of democratic legitimacy.

Tom Clarke: I welcome the Minister's proposal to visit the region fairly soon. May I encourage him to go to the borders, where NGOs-particularly the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development-are involved in a special mission? They are deeply worried about the situation, and are anxious for the final solution and agreements that we reach, if indeed we are able to do so, to reflect the wishes of the people rather than what we may think is right for them.

Stephen O'Brien: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. We are in touch with CAFOD, and it is part of the plan for my visit that I will go not just to Monrovia but up country to the borders so I can see for myself what is taking place. It is vital that we work with the grain of what people need locally, and that we are there to provide support rather than what might be regarded as a UK solution. On the contrary, it has to be a local Liberian and Côte d'Ivoirian solution to the problems the people there face.

Stephen O'Brien: We have been hearing reports of that, too. However, a significant number of countries and leaders across Africa are deeply supportive of a peaceful political process through the African Union, ECOWAS and other institutions, not least the United Nations-and I might mention Ghana and Angola, to name just two countries. It would be totally unacceptable for any leader or country to seek to supply arms to either of the warring factions, and particularly former President Gbagbo. If that were to happen, it should receive the roundest criticism from all of us who are concerned and want a peaceful outcome to this very difficult situation.

Anas Sarwar: I welcome the Government's actions in providing humanitarian assistance to the region. Comparisons will inevitably be drawn with the situation in Libya. What assessment has been made of the number of civilian lives that have been lost in Ivory Coast, and what efforts are we and our international partners making to ensure we protect civilians from another brutal leader refusing to leave?

Stephen O'Brien: The latest information we have is that about 500 civilians have so far lost their lives in Côte d'Ivoire, but that is very much an estimate-as the hon. Gentleman can imagine, reliable information is extremely hard to come by. All possible political and diplomatic processes are under way, and have been under way-we have been deeply engaged in trying to help and co-ordinate efforts to support that since the leadership crisis first arose in December. It is vital that we work down that track. Of course we do not want to have to take other measures, and it is extremely helpful that the UN Security Council passed resolution 1975 last night.

Kenneth Clarke: With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
	The House will be aware that in 2009 my predecessor announced a competition for the management of five prisons: Her Majesty's prisons at Birmingham, Buckley Hall in Rochdale, Doncaster, Wellingborough and the new prison, currently called Featherstone 2, near Wolverhampton, which is due to open in 2012. I am now able to announce the results of that competition process.
	Let me remind the House that these prisons were selected by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) for a variety of reasons. Birmingham and Wellingborough are currently managed by the public sector and were chosen after being identified by the National Offender Management Service as performing poorly. Buckley Hall and Doncaster are establishments that have been previously competed and their contract is due for renewal. Buckley Hall is currently managed by the public sector and Doncaster is currently managed by Serco.
	During the preparations for the bid it became apparent that competition could not produce improvements at HMP Wellingborough without significant capital investment to secure its long-term viability. In the current financial climate, this is clearly not a tenable proposition, so I took the decision to remove it from the competition process. HMP Wellingborough will continue to be managed by the public sector, and will need to deliver approximately 10% efficiency savings, in line with other public sector prisons, over the next four years.
	I am now able to announce the results of the four remaining prison competitions. HMP Birmingham will be run by G4S plc. HMP Buckley Hall will be run by HM Prison Service. HMP Doncaster will be run by Serco Group plc. Featherstone 2 will be run by G4S plc. The new contracts will be effective from October 2011 for the prisons at Birmingham, Buckley Hall and Doncaster, and from April 2012 for Featherstone 2. I would like to put on record my thanks to all the bidders for contributing to what has been a challenging contest, which will secure significant quality improvements and savings at all the establishments involved.
	The Government are committed to delivering reform in our public services. This process shows that competition can deliver innovation, efficiency and better value for money for the taxpayer, but also that it can do so without compromising standards. Before the bids were evaluated for anything else, they needed to demonstrate their fundamental ability to provide safe and secure custodial services. I can confirm that over the spending review period the new contracts will deliver savings of over £21 million for the three existing prisons. In the same period, the new Featherstone 2 prison will be delivered at £31 million less than the costs originally approved by the previous Government. Cumulative savings over the lifetime of the contracts for the three existing prisons are a very impressive £216 million.
	But public protection is not just about how we manage prisons in order to punish people. It is also about how we achieve genuine and long-lasting reductions in crime by cutting reoffending. I am therefore particularly pleased to be able to announce that, for the first time, the contract award for HMP Doncaster will include an element of payment by results in reducing reoffending. Payment by results is central to our rehabilitation reform plans, because it means that we can concentrate on paying for what works to reduce reoffending. The current system funds services, but not outcomes. Providers of services face few consequences if what they offer does not succeed in cutting reoffending, and little reward if they do succeed in cutting reoffending. Payment by results looks to change this by rewarding performance against the outcomes specified in a contract. In the Green Paper I outlined plans to develop this policy further and commission at least six new pilots for payment by results. The contract for HMP Doncaster is an important first step towards fulfilling this commitment.
	The new contract price for HMP Doncaster will in itself deliver significant annual savings. In addition, however, the introduction of payment by results means that 10% of the contract price will be payable only if the operator reduces the reconviction rates of offenders a year after they are discharged from the prison by 5 percentage points. If they achieve this, the contract will, of course, have significantly reduced crime, and for a cost of at least £1 million below what we currently pay. I regard this as a win-win approach. It translates to savings for the taxpayer, lower reoffending rates and a return for the service provider that improves their performance.
	I know that Members on both sides of the House recognise the benefits of effective competition-at least I hope they still do. Today's announcement shows it has a significant role to play in delivering value for money, better outcomes and broader reform. I encourage providers from any sector to rise to the challenge. The public are entitled to expect safety and security and better results to go hand in hand with efficiency and innovation. I commend this statement to the House.

Sadiq Khan: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of today's statement, and I welcome its tenor and how he delivered it. He will be aware that our policy was and is based on what works, rather than dogma. During our time in government, nine new private sector prisons were provided and three new establishments had been opened and run by the public sector, and I recognise that they have played a successful role in our prison system. It is right that we began the market testing that he is reporting on today.
	I wish to ask the Justice Secretary a number of questions arising from his statement. First, he refers to the fact that during the bid preparations it became apparent that competition could not produce improvements at HMP Wellingborough without significant capital investment, so may I ask him what plans he has for such investment at Wellingborough prison? How much will be invested, and over what period? Does he understand the frustration of hard-working prison officers and other staff working in public sector prisons that need capital investment when they are compared with prison officers and other staff in newly built or refurbished private prisons? Can he confirm that the decisions on the Birmingham and Doncaster prisons are no reflection on the hard work of prison officers and staff there?
	May I echo the Justice Secretary's comments about the importance of delivering efficiency, innovation and better value for money for the taxpayer without compromising standards? Indeed, he has referred to the £216 million that will be saved as a consequence of this process, which was begun by the Labour Government. Does he therefore accept that the savings he is now championing are actually the fruits of the previous Government's attempts to improve the efficiency of the Prison Service? Can he confirm that he will reinvest that money in the Prison Service?
	The Justice Secretary's announcement on payment by results is interesting and welcome. He will be aware that we began piloting payment by results in Peterborough, where we were trying to reduce reoffending. However, that is a pilot scheme and we recognised that lessons would need to be learnt before any full roll-out. What lessons have already been learnt from the yet to be completed Peterborough pilot? Can he confirm that Doncaster is a pilot and he will wait to see the results before the approach is rolled out further? His statement referred to the criteria for payment by results. He will be aware that 20% of offenders reoffend within three months of leaving prison and that 43% do so within a year, so will he explain further the criteria by which he will judge "if the operator reduces the reconviction rates of offenders a year after they are discharged from the prison by five percentage points"?
	Finally, I wish to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the workers in the prisons that he listed. Staff at HMP Birmingham and HMP Doncaster will understandably be worried about their future in these uncertain times. Does he anticipate any redundancies as a result of his decision? Can he confirm to the House that public sector terms and conditions will be protected under Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations arrangements? In addition, he will doubtless have seen the newspaper reports of contingency planning by his Department to deal with any industrial action that might result from his announcement. We have read that troops have been put on alert. Will he confirm whether that is the case? May I ask what discussions he or his Prisons Minister have had with the Prison Officers Association and others who represent prison staff? Does he agree that it is crucial that he and/or his Prisons Minister should meet the appropriate representatives today and begin a dialogue to avoid the sort of speculation reported in the media from becoming a reality?

Kenneth Clarke: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, because I was interested to see whether the Labour party was in the position that I thought it was going to be in, and I am reassured by what he said. As he said, putting competition into the system in order to ensure the best standards at the lowest cost to the taxpayer is a continuous policy, and things have moved on an awful long way since I was Home Secretary 20 years ago, when privately managed prisons were a highly controversial subject. We got the first one under way at Wolds, but under Blairism the policy was taken a whole lot further, with all the private finance initiative prisons. As I readily acknowledge, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) started this tendering process, which we have taken to what I believe to be this successful conclusion. It must be in the public interest and it must be right-I readily acknowledge what the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) just said-that we leave aside stale ideology and dogma, and instead look at what works and what produces the right solutions for the public.
	We have problems with the building at HMP Wellingborough. It is not a terribly old building-as I recall, it is largely a 1960s construction-but we are under notice that something has to be done about it and it cannot just carry on as it is. The building is not going to be adequate for very much longer. We are considering what to do about HMP Wellingborough. Its staff are responding very well to the problems that they face, but I hope to be able to come back soon to announce what will happen at Wellingborough.
	The contract for Birmingham prison is now going to G4S. I acknowledge that the staff at Birmingham have made considerable efforts and that they put in a good public sector bid as part of the tendering process, but the fact is that that process is objective and the private sector bid was just better, and somewhat less costly. On the right hon. Gentleman's later comments, the National Offender Management Service will, of course, have high regard to the interests of the staff at Birmingham. A new prison is opening not far away, which may offer some opportunities, but we will give all the appropriate support and hope to avoid an unnecessary number of redundancies.
	Payment by results was indeed initiated at Peterborough by the previous Government, and we strongly support that worthwhile experiment. The only political claim that I would make is that I believe the previous Government responded to the policies suggested by the then Conservative Opposition in advocating payment by results. We suffered the fate that often happens to Opposition parties-I hope that this will happen to the right hon. Gentleman, too-of putting forward good ideas which then get stolen by the Ministers in power. However, at least we are at one on this policy.
	The Doncaster scheme is another pilot. For the first time, the prison operator is entering into having a payment by results element in the contract; the operator will get extra reward if it succeeds, but it will share the risk with the Government, and will lose if it does not succeed. Five percentage points is what has been negotiated-a somewhat impenetrable figure. It means five percentage points down from the current percentage, so an 8.3% reduction from the current reoffending rate would be required for the operator to be paid.
	It is indeed true that we have undertaken contingency planning in case we get the wrong sort of reaction to today's announcement, although of course we very much hope that we shall not, because industrial action will be no more in the interests of prison officers than it is in the interests of anyone else. Contingency planning for disorder in prisons has always been done, as it has to be. It has been done for as long as I can remember, although I think the previous Government suspended it when they reintroduced the criminal law making it illegal to strike in prisons. They carried out an experiment when they lifted the legal ban, but they had a very bad strike in 2007, and put it back again. We have been bringing the contingency planning up to date, but we very much hope that that is a mere precaution. In the interests of public order, we have to ensure that we are prepared in case anything goes wrong in a major prison, but we very much hope not to have to put any of this into effect. We have had discussions with the Prison Officers Association and we are open to further such discussions, and we hope to be able to answer its legitimate queries in any way that we can.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Peter Bone: The Secretary of State's announcement will be widely welcomed in Wellingborough. Is he aware that the POA there and the management worked tirelessly together, doing so against the national union policy, to come up with a bid that has driven down the cost of prison to £19,000 per prisoner and has reduced the number of prison officers from 147 to 101? Could either the Secretary of State or a member of his team visit Wellingborough prison to see the improvements?

Kenneth Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman was indeed involved in the competition process, so he cannot start protesting-however mildly-about the outcome. I assume that he contemplated that either the private or the public sector bids would win, and that is what has happened. The public sector has the contract at Buckley Hall and the private sector has the contract at Birmingham and the other prisons. Serco was already the contractor at Doncaster. To show how ideology is fading, the irony is that Buckley Hall, when it opened, was a private sector prison, but it has been in the public sector and this renewal of the contract has been won by the public sector again. The law on TUPE remains in place, but we are consulting on the wider implications on transfers of ownership from the public to the private sector. The outcome of this competition should be the kind of thing that the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly happy to contemplate when he was party to the decision in 2009.

Alan Beith: I welcome the Lord Chancellor's decision to build reducing reoffending into the Doncaster contract, but will he assure us that he recognises that that will require the provider to work closely with a range of other organisations, and that they too increasingly need to be incentivised to reduce the reoffending that creates more victims of crime?

Kenneth Clarke: My right hon. Friend is right. There are two major voluntary parties with which the provider at Doncaster proposes to be in contact, but their names escape me-one is called Catch22 and the other is something else-and there will be local voluntary and charity groups subcontracted below them. Serco will manage the prison and will be the principal contractor, but the delivery that it hopes to achieve will be effected by subcontractors. I have emphasised to those who have attended seminars on this subject that I hope that the operator will deal responsibly with the small local contractors. Serco is entitled to use its bargaining power when negotiating with the representatives of Government to get the best deal it can, but I hope that it will not overdo it when dealing with smaller voluntary and charitable bodies that are also entitled to expect to boost their funds if they deliver the results required.

Stewart Jackson: I warmly welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's statement, and I know that he and his ministerial colleagues have been to Peterborough. May I add my voice to the calls to consider the social impact project at Peterborough with a view to extending it across the private prison estate? It could have an impact on prisoner education and in reducing recidivism.

Kenneth Clarke: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I was immensely encouraged by what I saw on my visit to Peterborough. I have discussed Peterborough widely elsewhere, and there was tremendous enthusiasm for the social impact bond that raised the ethical investment that has gone in to the project and for the determination to deliver it on the part of the St Giles Trust, which is the partner, the YMCA and the other people who are involved. We are finding this enthusiasm reflected elsewhere, and I hope-Peterborough being another private sector prison-that public sector prisons will get equally keenly involved. There are people in the public sector prison service who wish to contract on such a basis. I hope that payment by results will take off, and social impact bonds are one model for raising important capital to get them under way.

David Nuttall: I too welcome the statement from my right hon. and learned Friend. Further to the previous question, in view of the fact that prisoners move around the prison estate, what proportion of a prisoner's sentence must have been served at HMP Doncaster for that prisoner's record to be taken into account in the statistics?

Elfyn Llwyd: The Secretary of State will be aware of the recent report on HMP Bronzefield, a privately run women's prison. It found seven cases of self-harm per day, one woman who self-harmed 93 times in a month, and one woman who was kept in segregation for three years with very little human contact. Health care was shockingly poor, with no female GPs, and pharmacy services were tortuous and inconsistent. How on earth can it be for the public good to extend private sector prisons?

Kenneth Clarke: Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons does extremely valuable work and over the years, and has exposed things that can be praised or strongly criticised in both public and private sector prisons. If we look back over the years, we see that no rule and no measure can be produced that shows that either sector is overwhelmingly likely to produce praise while the other is overwhelmingly likely to produce criticism. We must look at the inspectorate's reports, take them seriously and ensure that where there are serious problems they are addressed. In my opinion-with respect-it is extremely out of date to say that what is wrong in such a case is the fact that the prison is private, whereas when another prison is criticised it somehow does not matter so much because it is public. The whole point of contracting and competition is that one specifies the quality one wants and the right price for the taxpayer, and then the inspectorate system ensures that real failings are addressed-and at the same time, we sometimes have penalties in the contract if providers fail to deliver.

Kenneth Clarke: I have every respect for the hon. Gentleman's opinions, in which he has always been consistent. He has always been an articulate advocate, and I almost welcome him as a voice from the past. I realise that the POA is rather stuck in its traditional attitudes towards this kind of thing, but I really hope that it will reflect on what is almost a universal view in this House that we are moving on to a proper, fair, competitive basis for deciding how best to run prisons and at what cost, without being so obsessed about whether they are private sector or the public sector. Of course, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt) and I will continue our close contact with the POA. We have had to have contingency plans in case anyone is so foolish as to start industrial action-but it is illegal to take industrial action. The sensible thing for people to do is to look at the tendering process and, if they are in the public sector, decide how their prisons can achieve a better score in future. They have won one this time, but it is up to them to put in the best bids as we develop the policy.

Kenneth Clarke: The answer is 11%, and that is one of the many things that surprised me when I started in this office. When I was Home Secretary we introduced the first private prison, HMP Wolds, which was regarded as a flaming political issue-we had crossed the Rubicon and it was a dramatic change. One way in which Britain has modernised is that we have inherited a lot of private finance initiative-financed private prisons, and now we have this open tendering between the two sectors across the country.

Kenneth Clarke: I would not like to guarantee that for any prison in the country. In far too many prisons drugs are, although more expensive, rather more readily available than in the outside world. That is a serious disgrace and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are working very actively on our plans to begin with drug-free wings and then drug-free prisons. This issue has to be addressed, and people in the service are keen to do that. I hope to come back later this year-as soon as possible-with some announcement of progress on that front.

Rehman Chishti: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement. Can he confirm that armed forces personnel are being trained to be deployed to man prisons if the need arises?

Kenneth Clarke: I agree that localism is extremely important in this field, and I think it will be preserved because of the process whereby major contractors subcontracts to voluntary and charitable groups. The relevant voluntary and charitable groups are different from place to place, and some of them are quite local. The people who set up the arrangements in Peterborough dealt with a collection of voluntary and charitable bodies quite different from those dealt with by the people who negotiated the contract at Doncaster, because local services and local ideas for tackling reoffending are different. I very much hope that, as the hon. Gentleman says, we shall keep that quality of local enthusiasm and commitment when we rope voluntary, charitable and third sector people into tackling reoffending.

Rob Wilson: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his statement, and I particularly welcome the savings to the taxpayer. Some would have argued in the past that they would lead to a lower quality service, so can he tell us whether Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons has shown any differences in recent reports between the quality of private sector and public sector prisons?

Kenneth Clarke: As I have said, I do not think it is possible to draw general conclusions such as "private sector good, public sector bad"-or vice versa-in any area. The regime at the best private prisons is very good and is hard to match in the public sector, and the savings are very considerable and useful. Sections of the media are enjoying themselves by constantly accusing me of letting people out of prison, but as far as I am aware I have not let anyone out of prison. I rather prefer cutting the costs of running prisons to letting prisoners out, and we are cutting costs in an extremely sensible way that should raise quality and performance in the Prison Service.

George Young: With permission, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week. The business for the week commencing 4 April will be:
	Monday 4 April-Opposition Day (14th Allotted Day). There will be a debate entitled "Police Cuts" followed by a debate entitled "The Government's Green Policy". Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion.
	Tuesday 5 April-General debate on Britain's contribution to humanitarian relief and Libya, followed by a general debate on matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment as nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Colleagues will wish to be reminded that the House will meet at 11.30 am on this day.
	The business for the week commencing 25 April will include:
	Monday 25 April-The House will not be sitting.
	Tuesday 26 April-Second Reading of the Finance (No.3) Bill.
	Wednesday 27 April-Opposition Day (15th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced, followed by motion on section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.
	Thursday 28 April-Second Reading of the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Amendment) Bill.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 2 May will include:
	Monday 2 May-The House will not be sitting.
	Tuesday 3 May-Consideration in Committee of the Finance (No.3) Bill (Day 1).
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 28 April 2011 will be:
	Thursday 28 April 2011-A debate on Sudan.

Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that statement. First, may I join the House in offering our condolences to the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) on her tragic loss? We are all thinking of her.
	The House has welcomed the two statements this week on Libya, and we saw the news overnight that the former Foreign Minister has fled to the United Kingdom. Will the Leader of the House tell us what plans he has to keep Members informed during the recess, and whether he will consider seeking the recall of Parliament should circumstances warrant it? May I also welcome the changes he has made in response to my request to extend topical questions to the Department for International Development and the Cabinet Office? After the failure of Ministers from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to clarify matters in oral questions, may we have a full debate on the spectacular incompetence that is the Government's policy on higher education? The White Paper has still not appeared, and most of today's students will probably graduate before it does so. What was clearly promised as the exception-universities charging students fees of £9,000 a year-has become the norm, because the Government are simply incapable of getting their policy and their sums right.
	May I say how much we are looking forward to Monday's debate, so that we have the chance to discuss the Government's complete mishandling of police cuts? Local communities will be astonished to discover that police officers are to be taken off the streets to be put into offices so that they can cover the work of civilian staff who are losing their jobs, and will be surprised by the news that special constables could be offered Nectar points to boost recruitment. Yesterday, the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice was completely unable to answer a very simple question: will front-line police numbers fall? Perhaps his boss will be able to do so on Monday.
	As for the greatest disaster of all-the NHS reforms-may we have a statement from the Prime Minister, now that we read in  The Times that he is cutting the Health Secretary loose and taking personal control because he is worried that the plans will backfire. A Government source is quoted as saying:
	"Are we doing this in one step or a number of steps? There's no settled course."
	In other words, they do not have a clue.
	May we have a debate on personal privacy and the serious and persistent problem of open microphones being attached to members of the Cabinet? Is it not unfair that at a time at which the Deputy Prime Minister is desperately trying to distance himself from the policies of his own Government, we should discover by those underhand means that in fact he agrees with the Prime Minister on everything? So concerned is he that we read that he has asked for good news initiatives with which he could be associated. Does that sound familiar? Perhaps he could be frogmarched to the nearest cashpoint to pay back the young people who will still lose their education maintenance allowance despite this week's U-turn?
	We also learn that, as the Lib Dems face catastrophe at the polls, there are plans for a total rethink of their image which, according to insiders, could
	"even include changing the name and logo".
	What a stroke of genius, so may we have a statement from the Deputy Prime Minister on whether he has any plans to change the law on party names and symbols to permit that? It would be a great pity to lose the bird completely. What about a dodo or an albatross, although I am not entirely sure that it would fit on the ballot paper? As for that embarrassing party name, I can quite understand why some Lib Dems want to get rid of it, so why not change it to, say, "the Conservative party" and just get on with it ?
	Finally, has the Leader of the House seen the Private Member's Bill that is due to be debated tomorrow that would abolish our much-loved national park authorities? Having seen off the Bill to cut the minimum wage, and after helping me to overturn Westminster's barmy byelaw, the right hon. Gentleman is now on a hat-trick, so will he assure the House that he will oppose that measure too, and will he write about it in his blog? The House will have noticed with great sadness that he has not blogged since I began to read it. He once modestly wrote that he is just the B movie after Prime Minister's questions, so may I assure him that if he begins again we will try to make a star of him yet? On that note, I wish the right hon. Gentleman, the Deputy Leader of the House, you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and all Members a very happy Easter.

George Young: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words about my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) which were appreciated by Members from all parts of the House. It was a tragedy that took place after she had taken part in a debate on coastguards and marine safety. On recall, as I have said previously, we will keep the position under active consideration. The right hon. Gentleman will know that at the request of a Minister, Mr Speaker can recall Parliament. We will do so if circumstances require it.
	On the defection of the Libyan Foreign Minister, there will be an opportunity on Tuesday morning in the debate on humanitarian aid and Libya to update the House. We want to encourage those around Gaddafi to abandon him, and we welcome the further defection, which we hope will allow political transition and real reform to take place. Moussa Koussa is one of the most senior members of the Gaddafi regime, and the Foreign Secretary has regularly been in touch with him, most recently last Friday.
	On policing, we welcome the fact that there is a debate on that subject next Monday in Opposition time. It remains our view that the police can make the necessary savings while protecting front-line services and prioritising the visibility and availability of policing. On health, the one change that the Government will not make is the change advocated by the right hon. Gentleman's party to reduce resources for the NHS-cuts that would plunge the NHS into crisis, put at risk cancer drug funds, thousands more health visitors and better support for carers, to which we are all committed.
	The right hon. Gentleman took a side swipe at the two previous Prime Ministers. I am surprised that he wanted to refresh our memory of the Gillian Duffy incident, and the embarrassment of the previous Prime Minister. He then took a side swipe at Tony Blair and his cashpoint policy. The distancing of the Labour party from its history is well under way.
	I am happy to say that the Deputy Prime Minister will answer questions at the Dispatch Box on Tuesday. We have extended the length of time for questions to the Deputy Prime Minister to 40 minutes, which will give him ample time to sweep away the somewhat frivolous suggestions that we have just heard from the right hon. Gentleman. Finally, may I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we will block the Bill to which he referred? We will all miss during the month of April the refreshing contributions that he makes every Thursday morning.

George Young: I welcome my hon. Friend's interest. There may be an opportunity later today in the remaining stages of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill to raise the issue. As he knows, we are changing the law so that in future police will have powers to remove those encampments. In the meantime, we welcome what the Greater London authority has done to remove the encampments on the green. We welcome the enforcement action taken by Westminster city council to deal with the encampments on the pavement, and further discussions are under way between the police and the relevant authorities to make sure that Parliament square is in a fit and proper condition for the royal wedding.

George Young: I welcome my hon. Friend's interest in this important subject. She will know that we have extended the consultation period. The Minister responsible has said that the Government will not give their response to the consultation until the Transport Committee, which is looking at the matter, has reported on it. She will know that this is a genuine consultation. We have already received 1,200 responses and look forward to getting more. The proposals will hopefully deliver a better joined-up and more resilient search and rescue co-ordination service.

Angela Smith: The regeneration of Barnsley town centre depends on Barnsley council being able to access the assets currently owned by Yorkshire Forward, the now-defunct regional development agency, and yet the Government are determined to flog them off. May we have a debate on this crucial issue, which is important to communities up and down the country?

George Young: I understand the hon. Lady's concern. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills is aware of the issue and is looking at the individual assets concerned to see whether he can come to a speedy decision. I will pass on her renewed concern to him and ask him to write to her.

Tom Brake: On the subject of distancing by parties, has the Leader of the House had any request to debate the implications of a party dropping the word "New" from its full e-mail addresses?

Karl McCartney: My right hon. Friend will be well aware of my view, which is shared by many Members across the House, that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority is an overly-expensive and bureaucratic organisation. Will he confirm that I am right to be dismayed, having heard last week that in the near future it will preside over not only our salaries, but our pensions, with the inherent and astronomical costs that that will entail?

Peter Bone: Yesterday, I made some comments in the House for which I must unreservedly apologise to the Leader of the House, because I gave the impression that he had done a good job and understand that that has affected his career prospects. To make up for that, would he make a statement next week about having another question time in the House? Would it not be a good idea to have the second most powerful Minister here to answer questions: the Chief Whip?

George Young: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's earlier comments. I think that my career has peaked, so he need not be too worried about jeopardising my future. I am not sure that there is time in the congested programme for ministerial questions to squeeze in my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip, but his door is ever open, as my hon. Friend knows, and he is always particularly pleased to see him.

Luciana Berger: Last week's Budget did little to help hard-working people up and down the country. More than 55,000 families in Liverpool will pay on average an extra £450 in VAT this year. With inflation at 4.4%, food and energy bills rising rapidly, but wages staying flat, household budgets are really being squeezed. May we please have an urgent debate on falling standards of living and the Government's lamentable response to the problem?

John Spellar: Last week I asked the Leader of the House how we could get an apology from his Cabinet colleague, Baroness Warsi, over the claim she made last year that the Conservatives failed to win an overall majority at the general election because of electoral fraud, predominantly in the Asian community. That accusation was completely refuted last month by the Electoral Commission, which reported that there had been only two prosecutions and one conviction. The Leader of the House generously replied last week that
	"I am sure she will have heard what the right hon. Gentleman has said and will want to respond to it in the appropriate way."-[ Official Report, 24 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 1103.]
	I am sure that he will be shocked to hear that I have heard nothing from her. Will he persuade his colleague to provide an answer?

George Young: I welcome the Newlove report, which was published yesterday. My hon. Friend might have an opportunity later today in proceedings on the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill-perhaps on Third Reading-to develop his points, but we look to act upon Baroness Newlove's imaginative recommendations to encourage local agencies and central Government to change and make a real difference to local communities.

Andrew Miller: Yesterday, Members from all parts of the House received an e-mail from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury with some helpful information about the financial services compensation scheme. The covering note, however, states:
	"I hope you will find this helpful in replying to queries.... Please use this letter in responding to any constituent correspondence"
	on the subject. Does this mean that specific queries will be ignored by the Treasury? Will the Leader of the House ensure that specific queries on that very important subject are responded to?

Julian Smith: May we have a debate about the daft decision by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to force the PAYE system on to town and parish councils?

Angus MacNeil: Given the opaque answer on coastguards provided to the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), may we have a debate about the coastguards, either in Government time or Backbench Business Committee time, before the relevant consultation ends? That would allow the Government to show how seriously they take our maritime insurance policy, namely the coastguards, especially as the two debates in Westminster Hall were inadequate in both time and structure.

Paul Flynn: As no nuclear power station has ever been built on time or on budget, is there not an urgent need to extend the review of nuclear power in this country to include the cost, the timetable and the danger of an attack from a terrorist group-and in order to give the Deputy Prime Minister the opportunity to explain to the House his view that the fallout from Fukushima, both radioactive and political, may make our nuclear plans unaffordable?

George Young: It remains the Government's policy that nuclear has a key role to play in future power supply. We are doing a review under Dr Weightman to see whether there any lessons to be learned from what has happened in Japan, but there was enough delay to the matter under the previous Government, and we do not propose to add to that any more.

George Young: I welcome what my hon. Friend says about the work club in his constituency. He will know that, in the Budget the week before last, the Chancellor included additional funding for work clubs-for precisely the reason that my hon. Friend gives. They are effective ways of helping those who are out of work to find work; they give support to them in making contacts, finding opportunities and helping with CVs; and we very much want to continue our support for those worthwhile organisations.

David Winnick: Given the situation in Libya, it seems unlikely that the House will not be recalled during the three-week recess, and I hope that the Leader of the House will reaffirm what he said a few moments ago. Can the House be informed, however, about the position of Libya's former Foreign Minister, who undoubtedly had a great deal of involvement with terrorism? Should not the House be told as much information as possible about Lockerbie? As the person who effected it first and foremost, he would have the maximum amount of information, which I hope he would be willing to reveal to the British authorities.

George Young: As I said in response to the shadow Leader of the House, we will keep under review the need to recall the House. We have kept the House in the picture on Libya, with regular statements and debates in Government time, and there will be another opportunity on Tuesday to address the situation there. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development who will open that debate will update the House on the position, and if the hon. Gentleman is here on Tuesday, he may have an opportunity to speak in the debate and to develop the point that he has just made.

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who will know that the issue was covered to some extent in our debate about the Budget. We want SMEs to be the drivers of growth in this country, and there was a deregulation package in the Budget. We have extended the small business rate-relief holiday, increased the SME rate for research and development tax credits and created enterprise zones, so I think that the Government are doing a lot to encourage SMEs to grow and develop.

Nicholas Dakin: I declare my interest as a former college principal.
	I was astounded to hear the Secretary of State for Education say on Monday that further education colleges, which the majority of post-16 students attend,
	"do not have cafeterias or kitchens in place."-[ Official Report, 28 March 2011; Vol. 526, c. 59.]
	Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State to come to the House and put the record straight by apologising to students, staff and governors in colleges?

George Young: I will relay those remarks to my right hon. Friend. I think he said "some" do not have, rather than "all", but I will certainly relay the hon. Gentleman's concern. As someone with an FE college in his constituency, I know that there was considerable confusion about the capital programme under the previous Government, and we are now busy trying to recover from that.

Brandon Lewis: Businesses in my constituency and, indeed, the New Anglia local enterprise partnership are excited by the Chancellor's announcement of enterprise zones, which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has just mentioned. Will he arrange for a debate in the House about the effect that such zones will have on the local economies of the areas where they go and, indeed, on the national economy?

Kerry McCarthy: I gather that after last week's business questions, when the issue of the child poverty strategy was raised, there was then a frantic ring-round of child poverty campaign groups telling them that the strategy would be launched next Tuesday-5 April. Can the Leader of the House tell us why he did not think it fit to tell MPs that that was going to happen, and why it is being left until the last day before the recess when we are on a one-line Whip and not many MPs will be around? What is he trying to hide?

George Young: Next Tuesday is a sitting day, and it seems an appropriate day on which to make a statement. I hope that the hon. Lady is not implying that I misled the House in any way in last week's business statement, when I announced the business that I knew was forthcoming, as I have done this week. In response to an earlier question from the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), I indicated that before the Easter recess the Government will be making a statement on the child poverty strategy and dealing with the legal situation that she raised with me.

George Young: I am sorry to hear of the problems that confront my hon. Friend's constituent. This might be an appropriate subject for an Adjournment debate, or he might like to raise it with Treasury Ministers to see whether they could pursue it with the mortgage lender to which he referred.

Mike Gapes: Can we have an early debate on the contradictions between Government Departments' policies? In particular, can he get the Secretary of State for Education to come here to explain why his Department, in connivance with the free schools organisation, E-ACT, has conspired with the Conservative-Liberal leadership of Redbridge council to evict, without consultation, elderly groups, ethnic minority groups, young people's groups and disabled groups from a community centre in my borough without any right of scrutiny or recall?

Barry Sheerman: Given the bombshell in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget speech about sweeping away planning protections, our green spaces and green belt are now vulnerable to any developer. Can we have an urgent debate on this, because middle-class folk, and all classes, are very concerned about the threat to our green spaces and our green belt? We have the local elections on 5 May. Surely the Government should come clean on green belt and green space protection before people vote in those elections.

George Young: Yes, I agree that not only Cabinet Ministers but every Member of the House should be very careful about the language that they use. I will certainly draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my fellow Ministers. I am sure that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, will do all you can to ensure that no inappropriate remarks are made in this Chamber.

Nick Smith: This week at the Ebbw Vale metallurgical society, I met the top brass from the Tata steel company. They are very concerned about the Chancellor's carbon floor price proposals, which impose massive unilateral costs on the UK steel industry-costs that no other European country will enforce. Can we have a statement from the Energy Secretary and a debate on this issue?

George Young: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Administration are committed to moving towards a less carbon-intensive future. At Business, Innovation and Skills questions earlier-he may have been in his place-my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he would have a good look at those who are intensive users of energy to see whether the problem that the hon. Gentleman has described might be overcome.

Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Two worrying claims have been made about our troops in Afghanistan. One of those was today's report from the National Audit Office, which suggests that two out of three deliveries of vital equipment are not arriving in time. Another claim made is that bullet-proof vests are not being supplied in order to provide funds for the alternative vote referendum. Have you news of any statement to the House that can point out the seriousness of the first claim and the stupidity of the second?

Andrew Miller: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In September last year, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority wrote to all honourable colleagues about employer liability insurance, telling us that it was going to expire today. Last week, it issued its new guidelines. Included in those guidelines was section 10.8, which tells us that we can claim for employer's liability insurance and public liability insurance. Today, and in some cases yesterday, some Members but not all Members-I did not receive it-were sent an e-mail saying:
	"Please find attached your Employer's Liability Insurance certificate to be displayed".
	This is not only causing concern and additional work to our staff, who are rigorously ensuring that we are properly protected, but will waste public money. Will you, Mr Deputy Speaker, perhaps in liaison with the Leader of the House and his shadow, ensure that proper guidance is issued urgently to MPs so that what is actually the case is very clear?

Lindsay Hoyle: That is not a point of order, but the hon. Gentleman has raised a very important point. Perhaps the Leader of the House would like to make a comment-it is up to him.

Barry Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I raise the fact that there seems to be no consultation with Members of Parliament on the closure of the Members' services centre in Portcullis House? It came as a total surprise to me when a member of staff said that it is all to be closed down imminently. If that is the case, it is disgraceful that Members of this House have not been consulted properly.

Lindsay Hoyle: That is not a point of order, but it is a matter for the House of Commons Commission, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's voice will have been heard.

'(1) The Licensing Act 2003 is amended as follows.
	(2) After section 197 insert-
	"197A Regulations about fees
	(1) Subsection (2) applies where the Secretary of State makes regulations under this Act prescribing the amount of any fee.
	(2) The Secretary of State may, in determining the amount of the fee, have regard, in particular, to-
	(a) the costs of any licensing authority to whom the fee is to be payable which are referable to the discharge of the function to which the fee relates, and
	(b) the general costs of any such licensing authority;
	and may determine an amount by reference to fees payable to, and costs of, any such licensing authorities, taken together.
	(3) A power under this Act to prescribe the amount of a fee includes power to provide that the amount of the fee is to be determined by the licensing authority to whom it is to be payable.
	(4) Regulations which so provide may also specify constraints on the licensing authority's power to determine the amount of the fee.
	(5) Subsections (6) and (7)-
	(a) apply where, by virtue of subsection (3), regulations provide that the amount of a fee is to be determined by a licensing authority, and
	(b) are subject to any constraint imposed under subsection (4).
	(6) The licensing authority-
	(a) must determine the amount of the fee (and may from time to time determine a revised amount),
	(b) may determine different amounts for different classes of case specified in the regulations (but may not otherwise determine different amounts for different cases), and
	(c) must publish the amount of the fee as determined from time to time.
	(7) In determining the amount of the fee, the licensing authority must seek to secure that the income from fees of that kind will equate, as nearly as possible, to the aggregate of-
	(a) the licensing authority's costs referable to the discharge of the function to which the fee relates, and
	(b) a reasonable share of the licensing authority's general costs;
	and must assess income and costs for this purpose in such manner as it considers appropriate.
	197B Regulations about fees: supplementary provision
	'(1) Subsections (2) and (3) apply for the purposes of section 197A.
	(2) References to a licensing authority's costs referable to the discharge of a function include, in particular-
	(a) administrative costs of the licensing authority so far as they are referable to the discharge of the function, and
	(b) costs in connection with the discharge of the function which are incurred by the licensing authority acting-
	(i) under this Act, but
	(ii) in a capacity other than that of licensing authority (whether that of local authority, local planning authority or any other authority).
	(3) References to the general costs of a licensing authority are to costs of the authority so far as they are referable to the discharge of functions under this Act in respect of which no fee is otherwise chargeable and include, in particular-
	(a) costs referable to the authority's functions under section 5;
	(b) costs of or incurred in connection with the monitoring and enforcement of Parts 7 and 8 of this Act;
	(c) costs incurred in exercising functions conferred by virtue of section 197A.
	(4) To the extent that they prescribe the amount of a fee or include provision made by virtue of section 197A(3) or (4), regulations may-
	(a) make provision which applies generally or only to specified authorities or descriptions of authority, and
	(b) make different provision for different authorities or descriptions of authority.
	(5) Subsection (4) is not to be taken to limit the generality of section 197.".
	(3) In section 10(4) (sub-delegation of functions by licensing committee etc)-
	(a) omit "or" at the end of paragraph (c), and
	(b) after paragraph (d) insert "or
	(e) any function conferred by virtue of section 197A (regulations about fees).".'- (James Brokenshire.)
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

James Brokenshire: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The new clause addresses the point about the local setting of licensing fees that was debated in the Public Bill Committee. I welcome the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) to the Opposition Front Bench. She will recall the discussions that we had on this point in Committee. I welcome other Members who sat on the Committee, and other hon. Members who are present.
	In my response to the consultation on the Bill, I said that we intended
	"to enable licensing authorities to set licensing fees based on full cost recovery".
	Since then, as I confirmed in Committee, I have been working with colleagues across Government to ensure that we achieve that aim in a way that is fair to all sides. I know that fee payers will be concerned about a change that is likely to see fee income rise overall. However, the fact is that licensing fees have not been increased, even for inflation, since the Licensing Act 2003 came into force in 2005.
	The new clause does not represent a change of principle. The current fees are supposed to cover the legitimate costs of licensing authorities in discharging their functions under the 2003 Act. However, there has been widespread agreement for some time that they do not achieve that. The previous Government recognised the problem, and promised an independent review of their proposed fees as early as 2004. The independent panel published its report, known as the Elton report, in December 2006. The recommendations included an increase in fees, but no action was taken. Therefore, the question for this Government is not whether the situation needs to be addressed, but how best to address it.
	We could set the fees centrally again, which would have the advantage of providing consistency for fee payers. However, I have chosen to move to set fees locally because I consider that it may be difficult to achieve a close approximation to full cost recovery with nationally set fees. Different areas do not have the same costs, and it is unavoidable that a blanket fee level would leave some councils with a deficit or provide an excessive income to others. No system is ideal, but as a matter of principle, council tax payers in areas with higher costs should not subsidise the administration of the licensing regime, and fee payers in lower-cost areas should not fund wider council activities.
	Fee payers should be reassured that locally set fees will not mean that licensing authorities can set whatever fees they like. First, they will only set the level of the fee. They will not be permitted to design new fees or their own fee structure; nor will they be able to use licensing fees as an income stream. The only basis on which they will be able to set fees is to recover their costs in discharging their functions under the 2003 Act. I will issue guidance to local authorities on the setting of fees, including statutory guidance under section 182 of the 2003 Act. To ensure that costs are kept to appropriate levels, that will include guidance on the principles of good regulation, including risk-based and targeted inspection.
	To provide further reassurance to fee payers, there will be a nationally set cap on fee levels. Under the new clause, that is provided for by the ability of the Secretary of State to apply constraints to the licensing authority's ability to set fees. I intend that the level of the cap will be set in regulations after consultation. The consultation will contain a detailed impact assessment of the proposal.
	In short, this measure is an important step towards ensuring that the Licensing Act 2003 works as it was intended to work, with fees fully funding licensing authorities' administration of the Act.

Diana Johnson: As the Minister pointed out, we debated this issue in the Public Bill Committee on the basis of an Opposition amendment. I am pleased, because he has obviously listened carefully to the arguments that we made. The Opposition were clearly championing the localism agenda, which I know is close to the heart of the coalition Government, so I am pleased that they have decided, at this late stage, to bring forward an amendment of their own on the issue.
	We have heard from local government that since 2005, when the regulations of the Licensing Act 2003 were implemented, the licensing system has cost council tax payers more than £100 million more than was anticipated because of the centrally set fee structure. As the Minister said, that structure does not allowing licensing authorities to set cost-neutral local charges.
	As the Minister pointed out, the Government had indicated that they were considering giving licensing authorities the power to set licensing fees based on full cost recovery. I am sure that there has been considerable interdepartmental wrangling on this issue, and that that is why the new clause has been brought forward rather late in the day on Report. A number of trade organisations, the Local Government Association and others were concerned to see the original clause in the Bill, so no doubt they will be pleased to see this new clause. However, I wish to raise a number issues with the Minister.
	In the current economic climate, with local authority budgets being squeezed, it needs to be clear to local authorities what funding will be available to them and what charges they will be able to set. It would be helpful if the Minister said when he believes the new fees structure will be implemented so that local authorities can begin to amend their budgets accordingly.
	We also discussed at length in Committee the new fees framework for the late-night levy. It is the view of a number of organisations that a new fees structure is far preferable to the bureaucratic and complicated late-night levy scheme that is to be introduced by the Government. Only a minority of authorities would be able to utilise the late-night levy, and it clearly does not address any of the pre-midnight alcohol-related issues that we talked about at length in Committee. The LGA feels that including the new fees framework in the Bill is the quickest and simplest way to remedy the problem, rather than using the late-night levy solution.
	Businesses have raised concerns about the new scheme. As I have set out, there is concern about the current economic climate. A number of small businesses are concerned that they may have to pay considerably more for licence applications and in fees to their local authority. It was clear in the amendment that we tabled in Committee, just as it is in the new clause, that fee levels would be restricted.
	In Committee, I referred to what has happened under the Gambling Act 2005, which gives a discretion to set fee levels within nationally set bands. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport undertook a three-stage high-level review of the premises licence fees set by licensing authorities in 2007-08 under that scheme. The overall conclusions of the review were that there was no justifiable concern about the level of the fee maximums set by DCMS from either an industry or licensing authority perspective, and that the introduction of the new system appeared to be working well and had produced a good spread of premises licence fees among licensing authorities, with no obvious systematic setting of fees at the maximum level. Clearly, the matter has to be kept under review. Will the Minister carry out a similar review after a short period to check what is happening up and down the country?
	In Business, Innovation and Skills questions earlier today, the Secretary of State reiterated the one in, one out policy for regulation. Under the Bill, a number of new burdens are being placed on business, such as the vicinity test, which will have an impact on the costs of the applications process for businesses. We know from the Home Office impact assessment that the annual cost of reform to the industry will be between £21.5 million and £52.1 million, with the best estimate being £36.8 million. The Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers estimates that the average cost per pub will be from £1,842 to £5,280, but could double with reform of the annual fees. I am interested to know whether the Minister feels that the Bill will take any regulatory burden away from businesses in relation to fees.
	Proposed subsection (6)(a) of the new clause sets out that there will be an opportunity for local authorities to change the fees from time to time. Can the Minister give any indication of what he thinks the time scale for such changes will be? For instance, does he think that fees would be set for a minimum of three years, or longer? Businesses have to plan their budgets and need to be clear about any additional costs that they will have to meet.
	Will businesses in the late-night economy that already contribute time and money to schemes such as Best Bar None and community alcohol partnerships be credited with a reduction in the licence fee? Is there any opportunity for local authorities to provide such credit?
	Although the Bill sets out a sufficiently flexible and clear framework, the amendment that the Opposition tabled in Committee would have provided licensing authorities with an opportunity to exercise discretion to reduce or waive fees for individual premises or events for organisations such as charities or voluntary sector groups, or for those benefiting from small business rate relief. Can the Minister confirm whether that discretion will be available to local authorities under the new clause? We need to see the details of how the fees will operate, and we look forward to seeing the draft regulations as soon as possible.
	The Elton report on fees, which the Minister mentioned, made it very clear that local authorities could benefit from sharing best practice about how licence fee applications were dealt with. It made recommendations about using staff involved in related activities in local government and using good communication and mediation to avoid expensive appeals. What thought has he given to those specific recommendations, which could enable local authorities up and down the land to share best practice?
	Will the Minister be clear about what local authorities will be allowed to charge for under the new clause? They clearly incur costs in dealing with licence applications, but what about the costs of the work that responsible authorities do in examining applications? I refer in particular to the involvement of the police, but the Minister will know that under clause 105, primary care trusts are also to become responsible authorities. Could any costs of their work in providing information to a licensing committee be charged for? Will the Minister also confirm whether the local authority will be able to include the costs of the work of trading standards under its enforcement powers in deciding on the level of fees?
	Costings will need to be provided in a clear and transparent way, so that businesses understand exactly what they are paying for. I hope that that will be set out clearly in the guidance that the Minister referred to. Finally, when does he think the new fees regime will come in?

Julian Huppert: It is a great pleasure to continue this reunion event of the Public Bill Committee into a second day, and to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), particularly as I had the great pleasure of being able to read some of her words in the briefings that I, too, received. That helped me to follow some of the details. I do not wish to detain the House for long in speaking to the new clause.
	First, I should put it on record that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association, and in that capacity I am delighted to be able to welcome this change, for which the LGA has pressed for a very long time. Not for the first time, I extend my thanks to the Minister for taking this and many other issues seriously, and for the time that he has taken to have meetings outside the Bill Committee structure on a range of issues.
	It is right that the system should not impose a cost on councils. The fundamental problem with the current system is that it has been a huge drain on council resources at a time when councils have many other things to do and many other calls on the public purse. Rather unusually, I am not going to blame the previous Government and say that they got it wrong on purpose. I believe that the fees were simply wrongly set, and that the required updates have not been made. I do not think the intention was to make councils pay, but that was how it evolved.
	It is important that we move from the previous Government's approach of having things set centrally to a more localist agenda. Councils should be free and have more power. For example, it should be open to a council to set fees below the cost-recovery level if, for some reason, it felt that an important thing to do. I am not entirely sure why taxpayers might feel that that was the right thing to do, but then councils should be allowed to do things for which I do not understand the reasoning. Indeed, on many occasions they do so.
	I will not go through all the details of the new clause, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North mentioned them. However, I have one concern to put to the Minister. He talked about the Secretary of State's powers and used the word "cap". He will be aware that we had discussions yesterday on concerns about the Secretary of State's capping powers over the police precept. I understand where the Minister is heading and why he wants such a power in this case, but can he assure me that he wants the Secretary of State's capping power to be used rarely, and that, ideally, it should not be the driving force as it has been in other cases in local government, such as police precepts?
	I am delighted to see the new clause, and I thank the Minister again on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, and on behalf of the LGA as one of its vice-presidents.

Andrew Percy: I come at the matter from a different viewpoint from my hon. Friend's, because I used to be the chairman of the licensing authority in the city of Hull. Transparency is important on the late-night levy, and on fees in general, but do we not have to ensure that we get the split right, too? When I was the licensing chairman, many of the solutions to problems in the late-night economy came from the council rather than from the police. We should therefore keep the percentage split under review at all times.

Justin Tomlinson: I absolutely agree, and I am familiar with Broad street-I have seen how it has been transformed into a relatively safe place over the years. There will always be a minority who cause problems, but if local late-night economy establishments, the local authority and the police work together proactively, they can transform an area. Although it is a burden to pay additional fees through the late-night levy, the venues will be paid back, because if more customers can see that the levy has created a safe environment, they will have the confidence to go to the venues and spend money.

Penny Mordaunt: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend's last point. The measure would be very effective in creating a safe environment in some areas of Portsmouth such as Guildhall walk, but in the north of the city, which I represent, many venues have no problems at all, and yet they would be severely penalised by such fees.

James Brokenshire: This has been a useful debate, and I welcome the contributions from the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and for Cambridge (Dr Huppert)-I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's kind comments and thank him for his support and participation in Committee-and my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson).
	Obviously, new clause 1 relates to the general setting of licensing fees and the administration of the Licensing Act 2003 locally, rather than to the late-night levy. I recognise the points that my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon has just raised, and perhaps we will debate the late-night levy in further detail when we debate another group of amendments in this part of our consideration of the Bill.
	The late-night levy is a discretionary arrangement, so local authorities can decide whether one is appropriate in their area. The Government have indicated that there could be exemptions for establishments that make arrangements under schemes such as Best Bar None. Further detail will come forward in regulations and guidance, as I indicated in Committee, which I hope my hon. Friend he accepts.
	The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) mentioned in an intervention the business improvement district in Broad street, Birmingham, which I have had the pleasure to visit. I saw how that partnership-type approach of drawing together the relevant licensed premises and other businesses to provide funds to look after and manage the area. A sad and tragic occurrence led to the establishment of that business improvement district, but it is a good example of how partnership working involving the police, the local authority, licensed premises and other businesses can work.
	The Government do not seek to prescribe one specific model of partnership or how partnerships operate, or to say how a local authority should approach its management of licensing-related issues. Those things can be done in various ways, including through a business improvement district, a late-night levy, an early morning restriction order or voluntary arrangements such as community alcohol projects. I went to see the St Neots project when that started, and it is now being rolled forward. We support many such consensual voluntary arrangements whereby various parts of business work with local councils to come up with innovative, practical solutions to address problems on the ground.
	The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and others highlighted a number of specific points in relation to new clause 1. As she said, the previous Government tasked the independent fees review panel with consideration of the deficit between the costs and income of licensing authorities. In 2006, it estimated that a 7% increase in fee income was necessary for full-cost recovery. Obviously, important points were made in the course of that review and, as I indicated, it was first and foremost in our considerations in introducing the new clause. The Government did not suddenly alight on the new clause at the last moment. Indeed, the original consultation document, which we published last summer, clearly refers to fees. In addition, full-cost recovery was very much part and parcel of the consultation, to which we are therefore responding.
	We will issue statutory guidance under section 182 of the 2003 Act on the application of good regulation, including risk assessment and targeted inspection, to which licensing authorities must have regard. That will be important as a further framework to the structure of the new arrangements.
	Hon. Members mentioned burdens on business. We are obviously cognisant of statements in the recent Budget and the intention to introduce a moratorium to exempt micro and start-up businesses from new domestic regulation. There will be exemptions from the moratorium, and we will obviously need to consider the new licensing legislation, including locally set fees, within that framework. However, I say to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North that there is a clear need to address the gap highlighted in the Elton report. It does not seem right for local authorities effectively to subsidise the processing and activities of the 2003 Act when dealing with licensing arrangements, and I shall say more about that.

Diana Johnson: Will the Minister therefore confirm that the one in, one out principle will not apply in relation to the Bill, which certainly places a range of regulatory burdens on business?

James Brokenshire: The hon. Lady actually made that point in Committee. The Government take one in, one out seriously. Regulatory burden was considered closely and carefully during the approvals that led up to the Bill, as part of our broader consideration of the wider arrangements concerning burdens on business. We want to strip away things that are not needed, bureaucratic and unnecessary, but we will come to that in due course when we consider the next group of amendments, which relate to alcohol disorder zones, which clearly have not worked, because no one has taken them up. We obviously consider the new clause to be an important step towards getting the right balance.
	The hon. Lady mentioned periodically reviewing the maximum fee level. That is certainly something that we will do. As I said in my opening comments, we also intend to consult properly on the details of the proposals, so that we can take on board the different opinions. There will, therefore, be an opportunity for a number of these matters to be considered further. The hon. Lady asked about the time scale for that. We anticipate that the necessary regulations will be laid in October 2012 to allow that detailed consultation to take place. That is the time scale we are working to in the laying of the relevant regulations. She also asked about guidance. There will be guidance on how locally set fees will operate and on how to set the fees. It is important that there is transparency on how this is undertaken-in many ways, that reflects the comment from my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon-and clarity on how the fees will be set locally.
	A question was asked about what the assessment for setting fees locally will include and what full-cost recovery will encapsulate. The new clause makes it clear that the costs that a licensing authority may recover in its fees include those of other responsible authorities and other relevant parts of the licensing authority. That means that marginal costs that relate to duties arising from the Licensing Act can be included. However, policing costs would not be included. In other words, we are looking at the administration of the Act by the relevant local authority. That is how the new clause has been framed. Obviously, however, further consideration of the details can take place as part of the consultation as we move towards introducing the regulations that will sit behind this provision. That also applies to the necessary guidance that will help to inform the framing of the arrangements. Obviously, fees must not represent a blank cheque for local authorities, and fee payers need to be reassured of that. As I have said, a maximum level for each fee will be set in regulations. We will consult formally on the level before we introduce it, and will take evidence from a variety of authorities and fee payers to ascertain the satisfactory maximum sum for each fee.
	I hope that I have addressed hon. Members' comments made during the debate. I also hope that all hon. Members will recognise that this is a sensible proposal, that we have listened to representations made from different quarters and that this provision will deal with the shortfall for local authorities. We are introducing the measure in a considered way, recognising the pressures on local authorities and businesses, and we believe that it is appropriate. We consulted on the new clause last August, and I hope that hon. Members will be minded to support it.
	 Question put and agreed  to .
	 New clause 1 read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

'Sections 15 to 20 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 (alcohol disorder zones) are repealed.'.- (James Brokenshire.)
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

James Brokenshire: New clause 2 will repeal the previous Administration's alcohol disorder zones. This optional power for local authorities was so well considered and useful that it has been completely unused by local licensing authorities to date. Alcohol disorder zones were heavy on bureaucracy and potentially expensive to introduce and administer. I am genuinely sorry that the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) is in his place to hear me say this, because he was involved in the consideration of these zones. I recognise some of the challenges that he probably faced at the time in trying to introduce the policy, but we believe that it is time to call time on alcohol disorder zones. The Government do not believe that they are the right approach to tackling alcohol-related nuisance, annoyance or crime and disorder, and as such we seek their repeal.
	Alcohol disorder zones were designed to tackle areas with a specific problem with alcohol-related nuisance, annoyance or disorder. To apply a zone, a licensing authority was required first to gather evidence that a specific area was responsible for causing alcohol-related nuisance, annoyance or disorder. Adoption of a zone further required that all premises subscribed to an action plan. If there was evidence that the action plan had failed, local authorities could impose a charge on local businesses to pay for additional enforcement, but had to provide a calculation of the cost of enforcement in order to levy the charge. That was a prohibitive bureaucratic process.

Michael Ellis: Does the Minister agree that one of the unattractive features of the disorder zone plan was that it required areas to be described, or to describe themselves, as having places of disorder? In itself, that was a most unattractive prospect.

Diana Johnson: Clearly, the new clause is a housekeeping matter for the Government in tidying up licensing legislation. I listened carefully to the Minister's comments on the need for simplicity and a proportionate response to alcohol problems late at night. However, I do not think that the blanket approach being adopted under the late-night levy is proportionate. I would caution the Minister. Let us consider a large area of the country such as the East Riding of Yorkshire. If the local authority was minded to apply a late-night levy to the whole of the East Riding, small country pubs with no problems would have to pay the levy as well as places in more built-up areas, such as Bridlington, that do have problems late at night. The Government's approach through the late-night levy might almost be described as the son of the alcohol disorder zones.

Diana Johnson: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Indeed, when it comes to licensing, one disappointing aspect of the Bill is the failure to deal with pre-loading and the low cost of alcohol in supermarkets. This Bill would have been an opportunity for the Government to legislate to deal with those issues, and there is concern that they seem to have missed it.
	I am concerned that businesses that already contribute to voluntary arrangements-they include Pubwatch and Best Bar None, to which hon. Members have referred-may feel penalised if they are then asked to make contributions to the late-night levy as well. There is also concern that because the provision will affect only licensed premises that sell alcohol, it will not deal with, say, problems with late-night takeaways. If the Minister is minded to do so, it would be worth considering whether the late-night licence should include all parts of the late-night economy. That would seem to be the fairest way of dealing with the issue.

Julian Huppert: That is obviously the case, but unless the hon. Gentleman has a fantastic suggestion for solving that problem-a problem that applies to waste collection and everything else, and in every other country-I do not see how we can address it. The same problem would apply with council boundaries, which are not always in the perfect location for all purposes.

Julian Huppert: I agree, and I think that my hon. Friend and I share the same objective. We do not want to return to the alcohol disorder zone approach, which clearly did not work and involved having to draw a complex wiggly line that would have exacerbated the problems. That is why I am suggesting ward-sized boundaries, which, while never being perfect, would take us a lot further and allow the various areas of Portsmouth to be separated-I do not know the city as well as she does, and I am sure that she could say which wards were more of an issue than others.

Stephen McCabe: If we accept that alcohol disorder zones were not a success-perhaps it is right to repeal them at this stage-is it not also fair to say that what we are hearing today are legitimate concerns about the unintended consequences of the new approach? Given the hon. Gentleman's desire not to have ineffective legislation, does he feel that it would be in the Government's interests for the Minister to promise an early review of the proposal?

Andrew Percy: I had not intended to speak in this debate, but it is about an issue in which I am quite interested, given my former role as chairman of the licensing authority in Hull, one of the two councils in East Yorkshire. My coalition colleague, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), stole some of my thunder, proving that on this issue we are a happy coalition.
	I chaired the licensing authority in Hull for a number of years, at the time when powers were transferred to us from the justices, so I was involved in writing the city's licensing policy. It was clear from the beginning that the powers that we had been given were insufficient. In some ways, I understood why the Government had come up with a solution, given the national outcry at the time and the problems that we had all read about. However, when I sat down with our council officers and said, "Alcohol disorder zones-what's your advice?", they said, "We're not going to go anywhere them, and we doubt anyone else will." It would have taken some time for alcohol disorder zones to become effective, but it was clear from the beginning that they were incredibly bureaucratic and would not be introduced in any part of England. Indeed, we have had similar problems with cumulative impact zones, which the local authority in Hull has twice rejected, and on very much the same grounds-the unfairness that could be meted out to premises with no problems at all, but which could none the less be drawn into such zones.
	I take the point made by the shadow Minister-my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson)-about the late-night levy. In many ways, I understand the Government's intentions. Indeed, when I was a licensing chairman, all we wanted was a little more power-as all councillors and politicians always do-to do something about the premises with which we knew we had repeated problems. At the time, we could not always rely on the police to make review applications, and we could little with the review applications that we received from residents, because of the weight of evidence that they put was insufficient, so we do need something.
	I have concerns, however, particularly-as the shadow Minister said-in areas such as the East Riding of Yorkshire, or in the other part of my constituency, in north Lincolnshire. A late-night levy could draw in the Percy Arms-the pub four doors from my house, in a small, quiet, East Riding village-at the same time as nightclubs in Bridlington and Withernsea, which seems a little unfair.
	Indeed, that would be unfair in a city as well. In Hull, as well as in Scunthorpe and other towns in our area, the problems are generally in the town or city centre, yet pubs in the suburbs or outside the city could also be drawn into the levy. I therefore support the suggestion made by Members in all parts of the House, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, that we should think carefully about how to apply the levy. I understand the Government's intention, and I agree with the early-hours orders, which could be particularly effective. However, we need to ensure flexibility in the system. In my time as a licensing chairman, we wanted a bit more power to do something against certain premises. However, as with all legislation, we need to ensure that we do not draw in premises that are innocent of any trouble. Like the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), I would urge the Government to give an assurance that the provisions will be reviewed at some time in the future.

Justin Tomlinson: Obviously I have already covered some of this issue with my earlier comments on the late-night levy, but the buzz word that is coming across is greater flexibility. A number of Members have highlighted possible solutions to the problems of setting boundaries, but I think that the only way to set a boundary is to be venue-specific. Venues that conduct themselves in the right manner need an incentive. It has been suggested that venues in the East Riding with no history of problems, which do everything by the rule book and are nowhere near the problem areas, could be caught by the provisions. If we adopted more specific boundaries, we might have a ward boundary between two different establishments, with the well-behaved one on the wrong side of the boundary.
	The measure should be venue-specific and should be reviewed on a 12-month basis. A venue might be perfectly well behaved, but have a change of manager or a change in its cycle. In my experience, a new venue has novelty value and people queue to enter it, so it can afford to be picky and choosy, but when it gets towards the end of its natural life before being refurbished or simply closed it might cut corners to try to keep people coming in. This can result in a prevalence of under-age drinking, and its associated problems, so the measure should be venue-specific and reviewed regularly. The venues should also help to shape the way in which the late-night levy is paid.
	I welcome local authorities having greater powers to deal with problem venues because we have a duty to protect the vast majority of people who go out on a Friday and Saturday night to enjoy themselves. If a venue is causing problems and encouraging a small minority to ruin things for the vast majority, the local authority should have the power to deal with that. Again, such measures should be venue-specific, and time-specific in relation to the venue. Generally, when people are out enjoying themselves, they are well behaved, but if they are trying to get home having not had a very good night problems can arise. People might try to jump the queue for a taxi, for example, which is why I have mentioned the need for a taxi co-ordinator. If all the venues in an area close at the same time, everyone will be spilling on to the streets at once. Closing times should therefore be staggered throughout the night. We should allow the responsible venues that have all the checks in place to stay open until 3 o'clock in the morning, if that is what the area wants, and close a problem venue at a different time to allow the limited police resources to deal with any associated problems. My plea is therefore for greater flexibility and for measures to be venue-specific and reviewed regularly.

Justin Tomlinson: There would be obvious challenges. For example, if a local authority decided to charge any venue open after midnight a late-night levy but made it close at 12.15, that would not give it an opportunity to generate enough additional income to pay for the late-night levy. My proposal would be to bring the local authority, the police and the late-night venues together to discuss the matter. No venue will openly say that it wants to pay a late-night levy, because it adds an extra cost to its bottom line, but if that money were seen to be spent on improving the safety and enjoyment of the vast majority of people, allowing them to get home safely and quickly after a night out, they would be more likely to go out again and spend money.
	I am trying to strike a balance between being proactively supportive of people going out and enjoying themselves and considering those who have to deal with the minority who cause problems. To ensure that this works, I would make it compulsory for those responsible for running venues-the managers, the keyholders, the licence holders-to sit round the table with the local authority, the licensing people and the police. This practice can encompass schemes such as Best Bar None and Pubwatch, and approaches that bar troublemakers from all the venues in an area if they cause trouble in just one. In that way, the vast majority who go out to enjoy themselves on Friday and Saturday nights will have their experience enhanced, and the industry will benefit because its perception and reputation will be greatly improved.

Stephen McCabe: I agree with the comments made by the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson); his experience has been of benefit to all of us. This is not a party political issue. We all want to see successful pubs and licensed premises where people can enjoy themselves and the businesses can make money and provide the jobs that are very much needed in some places. Perhaps I did not make myself clear to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert): I am happy to accept that alcohol disorder zones were not a success. I think that they were genuinely conceived as an attempt to deal with a problem that we all recognised, but they were not a success. I am not in any sense troubled to see the Government scrapping them and trying a different approach. I honestly hope that that approach will work, and I wish it well.
	There are some obvious concerns, however, and several of them have been mentioned today. Problems could arise when a rural area is adjacent to an intensively developed town, for example. The application of the rules in such a situation could be problematic. The west midlands has several local authorities in close proximity, and there is a risk that the application of certain levy arrangements in, say, Solihull could have a knock-on effect in neighbouring Birmingham. It is reasonable to say that we are concerned about how this will work in practice.
	I urge the Minister to review the provisions, not because I want to be able to come back here in 12 or 18 months to have a bit of fun at his expense. On many occasions, I would quite enjoy that, but in this context it probably would not be terribly useful. As I have said, this problem does not involve any party politics. We are all grappling with the same issue, and want to get to the same end point. I therefore urge the Minister to have a review, perhaps even a rolling review, so that we can see what problems are developing, what solutions are being tried, and whether there is a way of developing best practice. Instead of reaching a point at which we have to say, "Oh well, that didn't work either. We'll repeal it and start all over again", I would much rather see the approach being modified as we go along. It might be in the Minister's interest to agree to report regularly to us on the lessons that have been learned from the application of the measure, so that we can call on the experience of people such as the hon. Member for North Swindon, who could suggest adjustments that might make a difference.
	I wish the measure well, and I hope that it will work, but I urge the Minister to think about introducing a regular review process that will allow us to learn lessons and ensure that we tackle the problem.

James Brokenshire: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) for his contribution. He talked about not wanting to have fun at my expense, but I genuinely take on board his point.
	I am sorry that the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) was in the Chamber only fleetingly. Perhaps he did not want to be present at the denouement. I remember him, when he was a Minister, grappling to try to make the alcohol disorder zone policy work. I was an Opposition spokesman at the time, and I used to pick holes in it, saying that parts of it would not work and that it was too complicated. I asked how areas would be defined and which businesses would be part of the scheme. I also asked how the costs and charges would be calculated, and what steps would have to be taken to set the scheme up. I could almost see the beads of sweat forming on the hon. Gentleman's brow, because those were all fair questions that many people were asking. I do not claim any great credit in that sense, because many outside agencies, including the Local Government Association, shared the view that it was a nice idea but that it really would not work. It is now right and proper to accept that, to move on and to learn the lessons from that time.
	I respect the comments of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who I know probably wants to gloss over the alcohol disorder zone episode, as does everybody nowadays, and move on to a new chapter. The ADZ episode taught us that in seeking to apply a charge in that way, defining the area can seem quite straightforward initially but prove devilishly difficult. That was one of the issues behind the ADZ problem.
	We have sought to take a different approach by looking at the issue on a time basis rather than at a specific area and by dealing with the problems of managing the late-night economy. Research showed that there were pressures on the police and increases in crime in the early hours of the morning, suggesting the importance of the time at which this was happening. That is why clause 126 makes it clear that the late-night levy must
	"begin at or after midnight, and... end at or before 6 am."
	I hear the points made about rural areas, for example, where there might not be a problem. I note the question about whether, if the levy were applied more generally across the whole local council area, it would capture the well-run community pubs in the locality. If this were set to start only at midnight, I would suggest that those well-run community pubs are most likely to have shut by that time-before the levy comes into operation. If this is a problem, there is flexibility in the setting of the time at which the levy starts; it could begin from 1 am, for example. That flexibility is built into the measure.

Nigel Mills: It would help us and the industry if we understood how we are going to deal with the problem of events accidentally going beyond midnight or 1 am. Although there might not be any problems, a licence might be sought to cover a wedding or other event. At times such as new year's eve places are open for a long time, which might technically tip them into the levy, although that is not the Government's intention.

James Brokenshire: Again, I think I said in Committee that we would want to look at such issues in the detail of the regulations. There are some specific points, as I said in Committee, that it would be appropriate to examine further. As part of that, we would want to give flexibility to encapsulate the schemes we have debated this afternoon-the Best Bar None and other voluntary schemes-so that some credit could be applied. I stress that the provisions are intended to be flexible, but if it became clear that the levy was not effective, at that stage-once implementation has taken place and an appropriate period had elapsed-it would be appropriate, as with any measure, to review it. We believe, however, that the provisions already have the required flexibility and are workable, and that they will not have the same bureaucratic problems as alcohol disorder zones. We believe that they are an important means of aiding the management and control of the late-night economy, many areas of which have been badly affected by the introduction of the Licensing Act 2003, without necessarily taking account of the consequences that have occurred.

James Brokenshire: On the venue-specific point, if there are problems, a review of licensed premises can be conducted. That is also why we included provisions to strengthen the enforcement of under-age sales.
	Can problems with pre-loading, post-loading and so forth be pinned down to one specific area or not? We think that setting the levy on a time basis is fair and equitable, involving the provision of funding for local authorities to look at taxi marshals and manage the late-night economy in its broadest sense. By narrowing it down, the provision might start to lose some of the intent behind it, which is to help the police and local authorities to manage the late-night economy-if that is what they choose to do. I remind hon. Members that this is a discretionary power for local authorities to determine.

James Brokenshire: Strangely enough, this Government do not believe in central targets. The hon. Lady tempts me down that path, but I have to say that I have no specific target. I refer her to the regulatory impact assessment, which she will have read assiduously, as it sets out the level of fees forecasted. The regulatory impact assessment sought to examine possible options and estimate what might be recovered by the late-night levy. Rather than count up the number of local authorities, however, I point her to that assessment. We hope it will be successful.

Andrew Percy: The Minister is generous with his time and in being willing to take some of our points into account. I welcome the suggestion that we might be able to find a way, by means of regulation, of excluding village pubs such as the ones in my area. The problem with the alcohol disorder zones was not necessarily the setting of the boundaries, but the paperwork and bureaucracy that went with them. I commend to the Minister one area of law that seems to have worked very well-the designated alcohol zones. These are no-drinking zones, which have a set boundary and were quite easy to set up in comparison with ADZs. Having boundaries or setting boundaries around problem areas is not necessarily that complicated if we ensure that the process is simplified.

'(1) The Licensing Act 2003 is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 4 (General duties of licensing authorities) insert-
	(a) protecting and improving public health.".'.- (Diana Johnson.)
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Diana Johnson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The Licensing Act 2003 sets out the four licensing objectives that must currently be taken into account when a local authority carries out its licensing functions: the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance, and the protection of children from harm. The new clause would introduce a fifth objective: to protect and improve public health. We tabled it to deal with three key issues. First, there is the fact that public health is far more prominent and talked about than ever before. Secondly, there is the role of primary care trusts and, in future, local authorities, which is relevant to clause 104. Thirdly, there is the current position in Scotland.
	Let me explain first why we think the issue of public health is so important. As an Opposition spokesman, the Secretary of State for Health made clear his strong commitment to it. So committed was he that he planned to rename the Department of Health "the Department of Public Health" if the Conservatives came to power. Obviously that has not happened, but the Secretary of State is very busy with his Health and Social Care Bill, and we know that he is trying to rename the NHS "the HS"-to get rid of the "national".
	The widespread view is that there is a proper role for Government in the promotion of good public health. We know from the provisions of the Health and Social Care Bill that one of the few budgets that will be ring-fenced in future is the public health money that will pass from the PCTs to local authorities in 2013. However, the Government have experienced big problems in their approach to public health. This month we have seen the fall-out from their stance on self-regulation by the drinks industry through the responsibility deal. A number of health groups have walked away from the discussions and the agreement, including the British Heart Foundation.
	Don Shenker, the chief executive of Alcohol Concern, made clear his view that the Government's approach to public health will not work. He said that the responsibility deal was
	"the worst possible deal for everyone who wants to see alcohol harm reduced",
	and that it had no sanctions to impose if the industry failed to fulfil its pledges. He described those pledges as "half-hearted",
	and that the
	"government has clearly shown that when it comes to public health its first priority is to side with big business and protect private profit."
	Let us consider what has already been said about this issue, and the action that the Government have taken so far. Yesterday the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) presented a ten-minute rule Bill to restrict the marketing of alcohol to children and young people. She made a telling point in expressing concern about the fact that the Government were putting the fox in charge of the chickens. They have, for instance, set their face against the idea of making personal, social and health education compulsory. That would have provided an excellent opportunity for young people to be taught about the effects of alcohol and the long-term health consequences of drinking too much.
	In January, the Minister set out the coalition Government's plans in relation to minimum pricing. He said that they wanted alcohol to be sold at the level of duty plus VAT. Many people, including representatives of many health organisations, have pointed out that that will have little effect on the price of alcohol in supermarkets, many of which will continue to sell alcohol that is cheaper than bottled water. It also contradicts the view of Liam Donaldson, the former chief medical officer, that there should be a minimum price of 50p per unit.

Diana Johnson: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, because he pays close attention to these issues, there has been a continuing debate for some time about the need to reach a conclusion that everyone considers appropriate. The problem with the announcement from the coalition Government is that it is causing most people to think that it will have no effect at all.
	I know that the hon. Gentleman sets great store by academic research and evidence. According to research carried out by Sheffield university, pricing measures will only be significantly effective from around the 40p per unit mark. It is feared that the coalition Government's preferred level will be not 40p but much lower, and that they have missed the opportunity to make significant strides in dealing with the problem of alcohol abuse.
	As I pointed out during a previous debate, the Bill contains no provisions dealing with minimum pricing, and I think most people would consider that a great shame. We were looking forward to legislation shortly after the announcement in January. The Government are clearly in some disarray when it comes to public health and alcohol, but the new clause offers them a real opportunity to reassert their commitment to improving public health and dealing with some of the public health problems associated with alcohol. We believe that we are helping them to achieve what I am sure all Members agree is the very proper aim of ensuring that alcohol-related problems are dealt with properly by the House. Therefore, if the Government were to add in health and this further objective in respect of licensing, it would show that they are serious about the problem of public health, and it would also deal with the problems they have faced since taking office last May.
	My next point is about primary care trusts. The Minister will recall that we had a debate in Committee about primary care trusts becoming responsible authorities under clause 104. In that debate, I raised a number of issues about how the primary care trust, which is a health body, would effectively be able to make representations to the licensing committee on the four objectives of licensing, none of which currently includes the issue of health, and there was an exchange of views between the Minister and me about how this would work. It would clearly make sense for health to be one of the objectives, as the PCT would therefore be able to deal specifically with the health implications for the community concerned. I believe this fifth condition would make sense within the terms of the Bill and clause 104.
	I would also like the Minister to comment on another issue. Under the Health and Social Care Bill provisions, the primary care trust will be removed and the public health function will be taken up by the local authority. The local authority would therefore be exercising its responsibilities as a licensing authority and would also have a public health promotion and high-level strategic role. If health is not one of the conditions of licensing, might not local authorities be facing both ways at the same time? That is an important issue.
	Under the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005, the Scottish Government have introduced a fifth condition into their licensing objectives: to protect and improve public health. In Scotland, there has been genuine concern for some time about the levels of alcohol consumption and the effect on the health of the nation. The Nicholson Committee deliberated at length on whether health should be included as one of the conditions under the Act. When that idea went out to public consultation, there was widespread support for it, and I think that that would also be the case in the rest of the UK if the Government were to put it forward.
	In Scotland, there has been no final evaluation of the impact of adding health as one of the conditions, and it is still quite early days. However, West Dunbartonshire council has used the local alcohol and drug partnership information and guidance as a tool for the licensing boards to address health objectives, and that has proved a very positive step. That council is certainly considered to be at the forefront of local authorities in Scotland in dealing with this issue in a sensible way. This measure is breaking new ground however, and there is great concern about how licensing boards implement it and the information they take into account. Whenever we break new ground, there will always be lawyers in the background examining whether there is an opportunity to appeal, and, unfortunately, that has happened a great deal in Scotland, but that is no excuse for not taking the step and addressing the issue of health.
	Under the Scottish model, the main way the measure is being assessed is by looking at the over-provision of pubs and other licensed premises within an area to give some indication as to the impact on the health of the community. The statistics that are available through the alcohol and drug partnership should also be considered, as that has been effective.
	The Government have an opportunity to lead the way in introducing this provision, and to join Scotland at the forefront of taking public health and alcohol concerns seriously and shaping the debate in the rest of the world. Many countries are already looking at what happens in Scotland, and thinking that they may want to join in. It would be a great pity if England and Wales did not consider the matter properly and fully, and did not take some positive steps to deal with this issue, which many of our constituents feel has been ignored for too long.

James Brokenshire: That was an interesting contribution from the hon. Lady. She said that she felt public health had been ignored for a long time, but she made a slight mistake by highlighting that. That is why I am delighted that my colleagues in the Department of Health are taking this matter seriously in their approach to Public Health England, which is giving proper attention to public health. It is a shame that the hon. Lady made those comments because we have had a reasonable debate and she unfortunately decided to make more partisan attacks during that contribution. Perhaps it is worth reminding ourselves of how we reached this point on the accident and emergency issues and of all the pressures that are brought to bear on our health service and on the police. The vibrant café culture had been promised and written up as part of the reforms introduced by the Licensing Act 2003, but it failed to materialise. That is why we are taking steps in this Bill to address licensing issues.
	I agree with the hon. Lady that public health issues are involved here and that there is merit in making health a material consideration in the 2003 Act. The Government stated that in their response to the "Rebalancing the Licensing Act" consultation, which contained a specific consultation point on the matter, and we committed to considering the best way to take this issue forward. However, my view is that the issue requires further consideration, alongside wider Government work, to address the harm alcohol causes to health.
	It is important to highlight the fact that the Bill has sought to bring certain changes into effect, such as enabling primary care trusts, as health bodies, to make representations. Health bodies have a clear interest in the existing 2003 Act objectives of "public safety" and "crime reduction", as illustrated in: alcohol-related accident and emergency attendances; ambulance journeys following road traffic accidents and other accidents; glassing and other injuries; alcohol poisoning cases and so on. That directly relates to how those health bodies are able to make representations under the Bill. Drunken accidents and injuries comprise a high proportion of accident and emergency attendances-the estimate is up to 70% on Saturday nights. When added to ambulance costs, they cost the NHS about £1.1 billion a year, so this is a legitimate focus for licensing.

Diana Johnson: Members on both sides of the House want to ensure that we get the best possible policy on alcohol and public health-we all have an interest in doing that-but can the Minister explain to me what he expects the PCT to provide on an individual licence application? A lot of bureaucracy will be involved if the individual licence application has to involve accident and emergency statistics. Are they what he expects the PCT to provide?

James Brokenshire: In some areas, NHS organisations already share anonymised A and E data with the police. Such intelligence can highlight where violent incidents occur and any hot-spot premises, thus supporting police representations at licensing hearings and wider law enforcement. Making local health bodies responsible authorities will encourage the effective collection and sharing of anonymised A and E data and other robust and targeted evidence for licensing authorities to consider.
	The hon. Lady specifically asked how the role of local authorities will be managed in the context of Public Health England. She will be well aware that licensing authorities become responsible authorities under the Bill and are therefore able, in essence, to make their own representations. Obviously, different functions are carried out by different parts of the local authority, as happens in planning. The licensing committee is able to consider applications and relevant legislative issues, so there is a broad read-across in how a local authority is able not only to make representations but to determine things. A local licensing panel will have an almost quasi-judicial role in that situation, as does a planning authority.
	I want to return to some of the hon. Lady's other points.

Stephen McCabe: rose-

James Brokenshire: I will come to that. If the late-night levy is effective in managing the night-time economy and in supporting the police, it will have an impact. For example, it might affect the accident and emergency attendances that might otherwise arise in an area. Indirect benefits could accrue from the operation of the levy in that way. Different points need to be discussed, but I will come on to the issue of price, which is a fair point and was raised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson).
	Protecting public health is a complex issue and that was reflected in the mixed nature of the responses the Government received when, in our "Rebalancing the Licensing Act" consultation, we asked about adding the prevention of health harm as a fifth licensing objective. Although those who supported the proposal acknowledged the benefits of improving public health, reducing the burden on the NHS and increasing responsibility among licensees, those who opposed it were concerned that it would be onerous and unworkable.
	Adding protecting and improving public health as a licensing objective, as the new clause proposes, would mark a fundamental change to the Licensing Act. The four existing licensing objectives underpin the Act and, as the hon. Lady highlighted, the licensing authority is required to carry out its functions with a view to promoting these objectives. We believe that before we make such a fundamental change, it is essential that full consideration is given to the potential impact to ensure that any changes are workable and do not have any unintended consequences. We should undertake such considerations alongside wider Government work to address the harm done by alcohol to health. For example, if we were to introduce the objective now, we would need to consider carefully-as we are-what the knock-on consequences might be.
	If an area has public health challenges caused by deprivation, does that mean, strictly applying such a rule, that it should automatically have no licensed premises and is that acceptable? We need to consider such detailed factors carefully in the context of the consequences of making such a radical change. That is why we need to consider the question carefully and cautiously, albeit that I have sympathy with the points about public health. That was why we raised the issue in our consultation last August but felt, on the basis of the representations we received, that it was important to reflect on the matter and to consider it further in that context and in the context of the wider work that is taking place.
	The hon. Lady made a good point about the Scottish licensing laws, which have an objective to protect and improve public health. We are keen to learn any lessons from the Scottish experience. The Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 only came into force in September 2009, it will be evaluated and we look forward to learning from it. There are other differences in the Scottish framework, such as the powers to control density of premises, which raise their own issues and would need to be taken into account.
	As announced in the "Healthy lives, healthy people" document, we want to improve alcohol treatment services through a greater focus on outcomes and payment by results. We also want to improve the commissioning of preventive services, including brief interventions by health professionals, so there is a broader focus that we wish to take on board. The hon. Lady mentioned the responsibility deal, but this is only a first step. The initial pledges will form an important platform for future work. Networks are already developing the next tranche of pledges, which we expect to go much further and to demand much greater commitment and action on the industry's part.
	On pricing, which has been raised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), we have announced that we intend to ban below-cost sales, setting at the level of duty plus VAT. That is an important first step in setting out a framework that we can evaluate and work from, so I see it as an important first step in dealing with the impact of alcohol prices on public health and on crime and disorder. These are complex issues, which is why it is important to do things in a measured way.

Diana Johnson: I am grateful to the Minister for his warm words about looking at public health and alcohol and I hope that we will see some more action on this. On minimum pricing, I am concerned that the announcement was back in January but I think there is genuine willingness to move forward on this. I have set out my concerns that the minimum pricing level that the coalition has announced is not high enough, but if we are going to do this, let us get on and do it. I do not quite understand why there is delay because the coalition has made its announcement and stated its position. I listened to the Minister's comments about the time frame, but "in due course" can mean quite a few things in the House of Commons, so I will certainly be looking to see what progress is made because it is time to get on with this.
	It is disappointing that the Bill does not address the issues of pre-loading and the concerns that people are expressing up and down the land about the low cost of alcohol in supermarkets. I am keen to work positively with the coalition on this important issue and I strongly hope that there will be real progress in the coming months. I hope also that the health organisations that have walked away from the responsibility deal negotiations can be brought back in and reassured that there is genuine commitment on behalf of the coalition to deal with health and alcohol issues. On the basis of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	 Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

James Brokenshire: I beg to move amendment 22, page 87, line 26, leave out 'authorisations' and insert
	'premises licences and club premises certificates'.

James Brokenshire: These are minor amendments to the late-night levy clauses in part 2 that clarify the effect of the provisions. To avoid possible misinterpretation, the Bill should use consistent terminology. Amendments 22 and 30 intend to achieve that end. Amendments 26 and 27 amend clause 133 merely by making it clear that if licensing authorities amend the categories of premises in their area that benefit from an exemption or reduction in their levy liability for a subsequent year there may already be none as well as one or more premises in those categories for the existing year.
	Amendments 28 and 29 remove a drafting error in clause 133 and clarify the basis on which licensing authorities must ensure that any exemption or reduction categories that apply in their areas in a subsequent year accord with the categories prescribed in regulations. Amendments 23, 24 and 25 ensure that local authorities do not suffer a burden in introducing the late-night levy. They do not change the intention underlying the levy; nor do they change the burden on business.
	The Bill as it stands allows licensing authorities to deduct the costs that they incur in the "collection, administration or enforcement" of the levy from the levy revenue. However, it has become clear that that phraseology, including the reference to administration, does not include the specific costs of introducing the levy. A licensing authority will need to carry out a number of administrative procedures before collecting the levy. First, it will hold a consultation on the way in which it wishes to operate the levy. That is an important process, and it ensures that the community's opinions are heard. Following a decision to adopt the levy, the licensing authority will announce its intentions. Some businesses will decide that they do not open long enough in the levy period to make it worth while to pay it. To avoid the levy, those businesses will be able to make a free change to their licence. However, that means that licensing authorities must process the licence variations without recovering costs. Amendments 22, 23, 24 and 25 will ensure that licensing authorities can deduct the costs of those introductory processes from the levy revenue.
	I do not want the levy to become a burden on licensing authorities. It has always been my intention that it should be self-funding while raising a significant amount of money for the police and other organs of local government. The amendments ensure that that is the case. Let me reiterate that the amendments will have no further impact on business. We have published indicative levy charges, which will remain the same. To make some simple clarifications and to ensure licensing authorities bear no burden as a result of the late-night levy, I urge the House to accept the amendments.

James Brokenshire: I am not sure that guidance can be ignored. It is intended to be of assistance in the implementation of the proposals on the late-night levy. The key element that the hon. Lady has highlighted relates to costs and resourcing. We are bringing forward some of these changes to ensure that licensing authorities can take account of the set-up costs relating to the late-night levy, which might otherwise be an issue. We think that it is important to introduce the amendment to ensure that, as with the different examples I have already given, there are no unintended consequences and that, if we are seeking to ensure that costs are properly attributed, that is built into the structure of the late-night levy.
	The hon. Lady made a general point on transparency and how costs are to be drawn up. That is a fair point which I take on board, and we will work through that in detail on implementation so that businesses are clear about the calculation and which costs will be brought into effect for the deduction. It is worth saying, however, that it is a deduction and the levy itself is a fixed figure; we are talking simply about what is being deducted and the 70:30 split, with which she will be familiar. In some ways that relates to our previous debate on the general licensing fees and the costs that can be attributed for the maintenance of the Licensing Act. Some of her comments may be addressed in that direction as well.
	Clearly, we want to ensure that the late-night levy is a success. We want local authorities to come forward with it. We believe that allowing the set-up costs is an important part of ensuring that the levy operates well and does not have unintended consequences. That will ensure-this reflects some of the comments in the preceding debate-that the levy will be used by local authorities, will be useful and will contribute to managing the late-night economy and dealing with some of the challenges we have heard about this afternoon. That is why we believe that the Bill and its provisions on the late-night levy mark an important step forward in assisting local communities and local authorities to manage the problems of alcohol and the late-night economy. I therefore hope that hon. Members will be minded to support the amendment.
	 Amendment 22 agreed to.

Amendments made: 23, page 89, line 20, leave out from 'of' to 'may' in line 22 and insert 'relevant expenses which'.
	Amendment 24, page 89, line 23, leave out third 'the' and insert 'any'.
	Amendment 25, page 89, line 28, at end insert-
	'(2A) In subsection (2)(a), "relevant expenses" means expenses incurred by a licensing authority in the administration of the late night levy requirement including, in particular, such expenses incurred in, in connection with or in consequence of-
	(a) any decision mentioned in section 134(1);
	(b) collection of payments of the late night levy;
	(c) enforcement of the late night levy requirement.
	(2B) Expenses incurred by a licensing authority which fall within subsection (2A)(a) include, in particular, expenses which it incurs in connection with any application made by virtue of section 134(2)(c).'.- (James Brokenshire.)

Amendments made: 26, page 90, line 38, leave out 'different' and insert 'any'.
	Amendment 27, page 90, line 39, after 'apply', insert
	'in addition to any that currently apply, or to cease to apply,'.
	Amendment 28, page 91, line 7, leave out 'by virtue of section 132(1)(b) or (iii)'
	and insert
	'as the result of a relevant decision'.
	Amendment 29, page 91, line 11, at end insert-
	'( ) In subsection (4)(b), "relevant decision" means a decision under-
	(a) section 132(1)(b)(ii) or (iii), or
	(b) subsection (1)(c) of this section.'.- (James Brokenshire.)

Amendment made: 30, page 92, line 41, leave out from 'all' to 'that' in line 42 and insert
	'holders of relevant late night authorisations in'.- (James Brokenshire.)

John McDonnell: I beg to move amendment 162, page 94, line 27, leave out subsection (2).

Nigel Evans: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 163, page 94, line 32, leave out clause 141.
	Amendment 164, page 95, line 7, leave out clause 142.
	Amendment 171, page 95, line 7, leave out clause 142 and insert-
	'142 Injunctions to prevent a prohibited activity in controlled area of Parliament Square
	(1) The High Court may grant an injunction against a person under this section if-
	(a) it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent has engaged in, or is about to engage in, a prohibited activity; and
	(b) the injunction is necessary to stop the person doing a prohibited activity or from starting a prohibited activity.
	(2) For the purposes of this part, a "prohibited activity"; is an activity-
	(a) which may result in serious public disorder or serious damage to property; or
	(b) where the purpose of the activity is the intimidation of others with a view to compelling them not to do an act they have a right to do, or to do an act they have a right not to do.
	(3) A person who fails without reasonable excuse to comply with a prohibition in an injunction order under section 143(1) is in breach of the injunction.'.
	Amendment 176, page 95, line 8, clause 142, leave out 'constable' and insert 'senior police officer'.
	Amendment 185, page 95, line 8, leave out 'or authorised officer'.
	Amendment 177, page 95, line 12, at end insert-
	'(1A) In subsection (1) a "senior police officer" means the most senior in the rank of police officers present at the scene.'.
	Amendment 195, page 96, line 12, leave out '5' and insert '3'.
	Amendment 165, page 96, line 13, leave out clause 143.
	Amendment 172, page 96, line 13, leave out clause 143 and insert-
	'143 Injunctions under section 142: content and duration
	(1) A condition included in an injunction ordered by the High Court under section 142(1) may prohibit the person from-
	(a) being in the controlled area of Parliament Square for the purpose of undertaking a prohibited activity; or
	(b) entering the controlled area of Parliament Square for the purpose of undertaking a prohibited activity.
	(2) An injunction prohibiting a person from being in or entering the controlled area of Parliament Square continues in force until-
	(a) the end of such period on which the injunction is made as may be specified by the court making the injunction; or
	(b) if no period is specified, the end of the period of seven days beginning with the day on which the injunction is made.
	(3) A period specified under subsection (2)(a) may not be longer than seven days.'.
	Amendment 178, page 96, line 20, clause 143, leave out 'constable' and insert 'senior police officer'.
	Amendment 193, page 96, line 22, leave out '90 days' and insert 'seven days'.
	Amendment 194, page 96, line 24, leave out '90 days' and insert 'seven days'.
	Amendment 186, page 96, line 20, leave out 'or authorised officer'.
	Amendment 179, page 96, line 26, leave out 'constable' and insert 'senior police officer'.
	Amendment 187, page 96, line 26, leave out 'or authorised officer'.
	Amendment 166, page 96, line 40, leave out clause 144.
	Amendment 173, page 96, line 40, leave out clause 144 and insert-
	'144 Applications for injunctions under section 142
	(1) An application for an injunction under section 142 may be made by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to the High Court.
	(2) Notice of any application under subsection (1) must be served on the respondent in accordance with the rules of the court.
	(3) The court must give the respondent an opportunity to make representations in proceedings before it about the making of an injunction.'.
	Amendment 180, page 96, line 41, clause 144, leave out 'constable' and insert 'senior police officer'.
	Amendment 188, page 96, line 41, leave out 'or authorised officer'.
	Amendment 181, page 96, line 43, leave out 'constable' and insert 'senior police officer'.
	Amendment 189, page 96, line 43, leave out 'or officer'.
	Amendment 182, page 97, line 1, leave out 'constable' and insert 'senior police officer'.
	Government amendment 57.
	Amendment 183, page 97, line 6, leave out 'constable' and insert 'senior police officer'.
	Amendment 190, page 97, line 6, leave out 'or authorised officer'.
	Government amendment 58.
	Amendment 184, page 97, line 7, leave out 'constable' and insert 'senior police officer'.
	Amendment 167, page 97, line 28, leave out clause 145.
	Amendment 174, page 97, line 28, leave out clause 145 and insert-
	'145 Breach of injunction
	(1) The court may impose a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale where-
	(a) an injunction under section 142 is granted against a person, and
	(b) on an application made by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the person is in breach of the injunction without reasonable excuse.
	(2) For the avoidance of doubt, subsection (1) grants the only powers available to the court where it finds that an injunction under section 142 has been breached.'.
	Amendment 196, page 97, line 28, leave out clause 145 and insert-
	'145 Power of court on conviction
	(1) The court may, following the conviction of a person under section 141, make an order requiring the person not to enter the controlled area of Parliament Square for such period as may be specified in the order which may not exceed seven days.
	(2) Power of the court to make an order under this section is in addition to the court's power to impose a fine under section 142(8).'.
	Amendment 168, page 98, line 1, leave out clause 146.
	Amendment 175, page 98, line 1, leave out clause 146 and insert-
	'146 Discharge of injunction
	(1) The court may discharge an injunction if an application to discharge the injunction is made.
	(2) An application to discharge the injunction may be made by
	(a) Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis who applied for the injunction; or
	(b) the respondent.
	(3) Before applying for the discharge of an injunction, the applicant mentioned in subsection (2) must notify the other.'.
	Amendment 191, page 98, line 34, clause 147, leave out 'authorised officer and'.
	Amendment 169, page 98, line 34, leave out clause 147.
	Amendment 170, page 99, line 4, leave out clause 148.

John McDonnell: I almost feel like apologising to the House for burdening it with so many amendments, but let me just explain the grouping of the amendments, which come in three blocks.
	The first block starts with amendment 162, and includes consequential amendments 163 to 170. I will discuss the effect of the block later, but effectively it would remove the provisions in the previous Government's legislation and prevent the current proposals from going through.
	The second block includes amendments 171 to 174, amendment 196 and amendment 175, and it is an attempt to ameliorate the Government's proposals.
	The third block, which includes amendment 176 and amendment 185 onwards, is the last resort and an attempt to try to introduce some protections to the legislation. I would welcome the opportunity, ideally, to vote on the first block, which means voting on amendment 162, and at least on the last block, which means voting on amendment 185. If there is a choice, may I ask that we vote at least on amendment 185?
	I declare an interest, because this part of the Bill deals with protestors in Parliament square, and I am a regular protestor there. I support Brian Haw, Maria and all the others. In fact, I was photographed on the demonstration at one point, and the image was included in the Tate Britain exhibition that won the Turner prize-so Members are now being addressed by a Turner prize.

John McDonnell: We shall have another discussion, on aesthetics, later.
	I am sure that all Members will be aware that Brian Haw is being treated for cancer, and, whatever our feelings about the protest camp and, in particular, Brian himself, I am sure that we all wish him well in his recovery, even though some might not want a specific geographical location designated for that recovery.
	I will explain the background to the amendments, because the issue was excellently debated in what was an entertaining Committee. I am not often placed on such Committees-on average, it happens once every 10 years-but I read the Committee notes and thought that it was an excellent debate about the background to the Bill and the amendments themselves.
	As people know, Brian took up his protest a decade ago, and anyone who has ever talked to him will understand his fervent belief in the need for peace and for the avoidance of war, and his concern for the innocent victims of war. His chosen method of protest has been to bear witness in front of the Houses of Parliament to the suffering of others as a result of war, and he has done so by choosing to place an encampment in the square, by addressing Members and others with a loudhailer and by engaging in discussions with others to try to convince them of the errors of entering into military action.
	Brian reminds us all of the consequences of the decisions that we take in this place, and he perhaps attempts to influence us in our future decisions. His is a traditional form of protest: peaceful, non-violent and similar to protests that have occurred elsewhere in this country and throughout the world.
	When the original proposals came forward under the previous Government, we engaged in that debate and a number of Members expressed their extreme dislike of Brian Haw and his colleagues' presence outside Parliament. I sat through endless pompous speeches about the sanctity of Parliament square, complaints about not being able to work for the noise of the loudhailer that Brian used, and long-winded debates about the aesthetics of Parliament square. I have a sneaking suspicion that what a number of Members did not like was being reminded of the impact of the decisions that they had taken in this House-decisions that have caused so much human suffering.
	The previous Government nevertheless brought forward legislation, which, I think we all agree now, was tedious, bureaucratic and unworkable-and has degenerated into farce. I commend the comedian Mark Thomas for his work to expose its farcical nature. Interestingly, the poor drafting of that legislation meant that it failed to deal with what many Members thought was the harm being done by Brian's presence, because the legislators-I did not like to point it out to them at the time-failed to make it retrospective, so it never addressed the issue of the encampments. In addition, the permit system became a mockery of what the legislation intended. It degenerated into farce when one person was arrested simply for reading out the names of the dead in Iraq and Afghanistan.
	I welcomed-and I said so publicly-the statements by the former Opposition that that legislation would be repealed. I made that very clear before the election and during the election campaign as a result of which the coalition Government were formed. The problem is that this Bill does not scrap the previous Government's proposals. In fact, it impedes peaceful protest. I give this warning: if it goes through, it will degenerate into the same unworkable and unmanageable farce that the previous legislation degenerated into. Having looked at the evidence from Committee and read the discussions, I think that these proposals will put an unmanageable burden on police officers and local authority officers, and increase their vulnerability to conflict rather than reducing it.
	In my view, the Government's proposals are unacceptably restrictive. They replace one unworkable system with another and have the same effect of restricting, for no good, sensible reason, the right of peaceful protest and assembly and free speech in Parliament square. These proposals are still specific to Parliament square, although I accept that the definition is narrower than in the previous Government's legislation. The proposals still place a burden on a constable, but extend it to a local council officer to direct a person to stop doing something and to use physical force to take equipment away. Under the proposals, a person who is convicted may be fined up to £5,000, which is a level 5 offence-I find that draconian, to say the least, and well over the top-and a formal application would still have to be made concerning loudspeaker use and to prevent the erection of sleeping structures.
	The bizarre debate in Committee about what is a sleeping structure was extremely entertaining. The most intense and heated part of the debate involved the modernist versus the traditionalist: those who supported the duvet approach to sleep as against those who supported the blanket and sheet approach. That is the nature of the judgments and valuations that individual police officers will have to make: "Is that a sleeping bag I see in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me?"; "Is that a sleeping structure you're carrying with you or a banner supporting the Police Federation?" It will become absolutely ludicrous. The other issue is this: what if someone can sleep standing up, leaning against a structure or against a wall? Does that become a sleeping structure itself? We will go through the same old problems that we had with the previous legislation.
	I will be brief, because other Members want to speak, and there is another important group of amendments to discuss. The reasons for the amendments are very straightforward; they have been rehearsed in Committee and in debates on the previous Government's legislation. In this country, we pride ourselves on a strong democratic tradition of peaceful protest. That has created climates of opinion external to Parliament that have influenced decisions in this House and the decisions of Governments of all political persuasions. It is linked to the fundamental right to free speech and fundamental right of assembly and association. In everything that we do in this House, it behoves us to guard against undermining any of those basic human rights.

James Gray: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the right of peaceful protest and the strength of our great British democracy in allowing that. Surely, however, there is a distinction to be made between those who are genuine protesters-I rather agree with him about loudspeakers, incidentally-and those who are campers and dossers staying on a permanent basis, and who are demonstrably an eyesore.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am sorry that I missed the earlier part of my hon. Friend's contribution. He will be aware that a great deal of parliamentary time has been spent discussing Parliament square over the years, all of which has been unsuccessful from the point of view of those who want to clear it of all signs of protest. Is he aware that in the United States, there has been a peace camp outside the White House for some 15 years, and that there have been peace camps outside the Australian Parliament and other places? Is it not part of something that we should be proud of, namely the democratic tradition?

John McDonnell: It is exactly that. Before my hon. Friend arrived, I mentioned that it is a traditional form of expressing democratic views. Rather than banning or impeding it, we should celebrate it. It is as simple as that.
	This matter is linked to fundamental human rights. In the Human Rights Act 1998, we adopted those human rights specifically in legislation, but we accepted that they are qualified and can be limited. I accept that, but any limit has to be proportionate and for a legitimate aim. We have to be clear what harm is being inflicted as a result of an individual's activities if we are going to restrict their fundamental rights. That is the problem with this debate and the debate under the previous Government. There has been no clarification of exactly what harm is being done outside Parliament that requires such disproportionate legislation. As far as I can see, there is no legitimate aim in the proposals of this Government, just as there was not in those of the previous Government.
	The issue of security was raised by the previous Government and in the Public Bill Committee. People will remember the ludicrous debate that was held last time around when we were all worried that members of al-Qaeda would hide behind the banners erected by Brian Haw. That was actually suggested in this Chamber. I remember the last IRA attack in London because it nearly hit us when I was in my office. It came from a Transit van that fired missiles, which landed near No. 10. The police officer made it very clear in Committee that the peace campaigners out there have allowed their tents to be searched whenever they have been asked. There is no security risk.
	The other issue is whether there is a threat to public order or any form of violent behaviour associated with the peace camp. As far as I am aware, none of the peace campers, including Brian Haw, has been prosecuted for violent behaviour. That issue has not been raised to promote this legislation.
	The main objection is therefore the aesthetic one. People do not like the look of a few tents and campaigners outside Parliament. I do not accept that people's aesthetic judgments can be used to undermine someone's basic human rights of free speech, association and assembly. And anyway, the protest won the Turner prize, so there are different judgments here about aesthetics. However, I do not want to get hon. Members going about the Turner prize. It reduces the argument ad absurdum that we regularly spend a few hours in Parliament on an aesthetic judgment because some peace campaigners outside Parliament annoy a small, or perhaps even a large, number of Members.

John McDonnell: Whether or not people agree with Brian, and I do, he provides us with an essential service in reminding us of the consequences of our decisions in the House. That might offend some people, but sometimes it is helpful to have such offence to draw our attention to the consequences of what we do here. Whatever Members think, and whether or not the tents annoy people who think they are messy or untidy, that is no reason to take away people's right to choose their method of peaceful protest.

John McDonnell: The hon. Gentleman has an exceptionally valid point, which has to be addressed reasonably. Wherever in the country we find that constructions have been erected that people find objectionable, we use planning legislation to deal with them. That legislation already exists. The other people who have joined Brian Haw are mostly peace protestors, and others have come along in support of other causes. If the hon. Gentleman remembers, we had the Tamils come along when the war in Sri Lanka was going on. They camped there for a week, and it would have been heart-rending to try to shift them when they were seeking to influence us to intervene to seek peace, which we did. We helped as best we could to prevent further disaster in Sri Lanka. It is all a matter of reasonable judgment and trying to ensure that we protect basic human rights. The grounds for incursions on human rights cannot just be about the aesthetic displeasure of a number of Members of the House. That is why repealing the previous Government's legislation was extremely important.
	In the debate on that legislation, and I believe in Committee on the Bill, the question was asked whether allowing one group of people to protest precluded others from turning up to protest. Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty, to which I pay tribute for the support it has given us on the issue, has made it clear that there has been no evidence of other people saying that they cannot protest, or of a backlog of protestors unable to get to Parliament square.

John McDonnell: There was a worrying consequence of one of those cases-I think Winston got eaten, as a form of capital punishment introduced as a result of what happened. However, a range of protests have taken place in Parliament square unhindered by Brian Haw and the other protestors. If there were a specific harm caused, and one protestor or group of protestors was preventing others from protesting, we should legislate on that specifically rather than have the blanket approach in the Bill.
	The amendments are fairly extensive and are in three basic batches. The first begins with amendment 162, and suggests scrapping the previous scheme and preventing the new scheme from being introduced. The proposal is based on the commitments that both coalition parties made before the election, and the argument is the same: this Government's proposals disproportionately target protests and protesters, just as the previous Government's measures did. The amendments would remove the powers to harass peaceful protesters. It is very straightforward: there is enough legislation on the books already to prevent protests in Parliament square that we feel impede the operation of Parliament or in any way cause disorder. In effect, the amendments would remove the restriction on protests in Parliament square overall.
	The second of three batches of amendments begins with amendment 171. They propose a reasonable, and a more appropriate and proportionate, alternative. Basically, amendment 171 would introduce an injunction process, whereby people concerned about prohibited activity within the square could apply to the High Court for an injunction. It defines "prohibited activity" not as tents or the use of loudhailers, but specifically as something that
	"may result in serious public disorder or serious damage to property; or...where the purpose of the activity is the intimidation of others with a view to compelling them not to do an act they have a right to do, or to do an act that they have a right not to do."
	Existing public order legislation can already deal with security concerns and violence within the square, but if hon. Members want specific powers, the amendment would give people the opportunity to seek an injunction, which would be imposed by the High Court if it reasonably believed that a prohibited activity or serious disorder was being planned or had taken place. Basically, that would introduce due process into the act of preventing people from undertaking protests within the square when that could result in public harm. The harm on which someone's human rights can be restrained and constrained is thereby defined. Amendment 174 would in addition reduce the overall penalty to level 3, which attracts a £1,000 penalty, rather than the current £5,000 penalty.
	Our next batch of amendments-the batch of last resort-addresses who will implement the legislation. As I said, at the moment, the existing legislation and the Bill put an unmanageable burden on police officers. At the same time, the Bill introduces local authority officers into what could be very difficult and dangerous waters.
	I propose that if a police officer is to take such decisions, it should be a senior police officer rather than a constable. We should remember that the decision will be to direct someone that they cannot protest in a certain way, and that they must give over their loudhailers, sleeping equipment or whatever. The officer will also have the ability to use force to take such things and arrest people, which is an extensive power that could cause unnecessary conflict. That should be done by a senior officer.
	Amendment 185 would mean that if an officer is to arrest someone, that officer should at least be a police constable-I do not believe that that should be the role of a local authority officer. The Bill introduces a vulnerability to local authority officers, who are not trained to undertake such work, and who are not capable of exercising the judgment that police officers exercise. Police officers are trained to make judgments instantaneously on whether someone is committing an offence, and on balancing human rights and an individual's behaviour. A series of linked amendments would mean that a court could prohibit someone for only seven days rather than 90, although I can understand why certain Labour Whips do not want that for some of us.
	As I said, amendment 174, which is in this batch, seeks to reduce the scale of the fine from £5,000 to £1,000-from level 5 to level 3. It is a matter of judgment, but I feel that the fine of £5,000 is so heavy that it will intimidate anyone seeking to organise a protest on the square or even thinking of applying for a licence, because something could go wrong and they would then be held liable. Rather than risk people thinking twice and therefore not coming along to protest legitimately, we should err on the side of caution before deterring people from such activity.
	The amendments would define the powers on court conviction much more clearly to avoid the individual summary offence. They also address issues involving the forfeiture of any items. There is a danger that, under the wide and vague power given to police officers at the moment, police officers can take goods from people in a summary way without there being recourse to the courts.
	I have rattled through the amendments, because I know that a lot of Members want to speak.  [Interruption.] Well, I think they do. Certainly, members of the Committee will want to speak. However, the issue before us sets a test for individual Governments. It relates not only to major issues, but to smaller ones such as this. It is a test of whether Governments are, as they say they are, truly liberal and committed to human rights, and whether they really want to be reforming Governments. This might seem like a minor issue for the House to be addressing-I do not think that we should be wasting our time, and we should not be introducing this sort of legislation-but it is an important test on which the Government will be judged.
	In opposition, the Conservative party agreed that this legislation was outrageous and illiberal, and it promised before the election that it would scrap it and support the right of peaceful protest, which I supported as well. Now the Government have introduced proposals that vary very little from the existing regime. In fact, they will become equally contradictory. As a result of this small matter, I believe judgments will be made on the illiberality of the coalition Government, and on their competence too. If this measure is implemented, and individual officers seek to enforce it, it will produce conflict. It will demonstrate an illiberality of mind and the oppressive nature of the Government's approach.
	On that basis, it would be wrong to legislate in this way. I appeal to the traditions not only of my own side but of the Liberals in respect of the right to protest and to freedom of speech, and those of the Conservative party in respect of individualism. I think Disraeli said that man is great when he is motivated by his passions. Those people out there are motivated by a passion for peace and against war. We should not do anything to impede the expression of their views, but that is what this legislation does, and that is why I urge the Government either to withdraw the provisions or support at least elements of my amendments.

Mark Field: Unlike the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)-and, I suspect, every other Member in the House at the moment-I did not have the privilege of being on the Bill Committee. As he will appreciate, however, Parliament square stands in my constituency.
	I have quite a lot of sympathy with a number of the things the hon. Gentleman said in speaking to his amendments. Above all, there is nothing worse than the sheer powerlessness of this place in the public's eye. He was right about the indeterminate number of hours spent on this small matter over the past 10 years. We need only consider the incidents and terrible disturbances last weekend on Piccadilly circus and Oxford street. There is a sense of powerlessness. Many constituents-they would not necessarily blame the police, and neither would I-think, "These events are allowed to go ahead, yet we have absolutely no say in the matter."
	In many ways, I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the sense in which Parliament is weak and almost entirely marginalised when these sorts of debate take place. A decision can be taken by Executive order to go to war and then be rubber-stamped 48 hours later in a parliamentary debate. I know that he and I take very different views about the rightness of what has happened, but I would agree with him in this regard: we spend endless hours debating these sorts of matters to no avail and end up with unworkable legislation. We have had some unworkable legislation in the past, so I share some of the hon. Gentleman's fears that we might be going down that route again.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important to have open opportunities for the public to protest. Whether we like it or not, Parliament square is an iconic place, in front of the Parliament building. There can be no other place where a more legitimate protest can take place, on an occasional and high-profile basis. I would be loth to repeat the idea of the erstwhile Administration, which was to have a 1-mile exclusion zone around Parliament, on the spurious grounds, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, of security. That was entirely wrong and an absolutely absurd route to go down. To that extent, my party has gone down the right route in this Bill by trying to row back from that position.
	However, I share fears about the legislation still being slightly unworkable, not least because so many different authorities are involved, from the police and Transport for London, to the Mayor of London and Westminster city council. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about too much power potentially being in the hands of local authority officers. I do not doubt their ability: many are very able and have shown great judgment. Indeed, in places such as Westminster, local authority officers deal with such problems on a more day-to-day basis than they might in-with great respect-a borough such as Hillingdon. Ultimately, however, these are policing matters. Given the security, the high profile and the difficulty of a lot of what happens in Parliament square, it makes sense for the Metropolitan police to be involved in the process, rather than local authority officers.

Mark Field: I understand that that will be "in due course", and there is of course an important event on 29 April, which is in everyone's minds when it comes to trying to clear the square, which is very much a focus.

Mark Field: The hon. Gentleman might not be quite as much of a royalist and a monarchist as I am, but he will appreciate that that is not what I am saying. However, there was a focus on trying for this thing, although the wheels of the law take a while to turn-there are a number of lawyers in the House, including, either side of me in the Chamber, some rather more distinguished lawyers than I ever was in my brief legal career. I understand that there will be no further legal proceedings on the matter until considerably after 29 April.

John McDonnell: rose -

John McDonnell: But it is a valid point, which was also addressed in Committee. We get ourselves into a ludicrous position in which someone turning up with a sleeping bag to wait for the wedding-as the Prime Minister did, when, as he told us, he turned up with his sleeping bag for a previous royal wedding-could be arrested under the legislation in the same way.

Mark Field: Ad absurdum, the hon. Gentleman's argument is right. However, that is also precisely the distinction that we have to face: the distinction between a one-off arrangement for the one, exciting night before a major public event, and having a permanent encampment around Parliament square. It is to the latter that most sensible people-not those only in this House, but many millions of our constituents-would turn their minds. It is not acceptable that a UNESCO world heritage site-Parliament square, the parliamentary buildings and Westminster abbey-is blighted by having a large permanent encampment. That is an issue, in part, of aesthetics. However, millions of tourists come to Parliament and they must be dismayed by what they see, week after week, month after month. It cannot make much sense for us to allow it to continue.
	To an extent, I had sympathy with elements of what the erstwhile Government were trying to do, such as their idea of having a licensed system covering demonstrations when major debates were taking place. In my view, it would have been entirely legitimate, for example, on the day we had our debate on Libya, for those who felt strongly about the issue, on either side, to have held a large, peaceful demonstration. But the notion that encampments can exist day after day, week after week, is another matter. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Tamil encampment that was in Parliament square in the autumn of 2009, which reached a ludicrous stage. There was a lot of noise and disturbance. There were old-fashioned local authority health and safety issues, as well as the whole question of toilet provision, and the area became something of a health hazard as the Tamil group camped there for six weeks before finally leaving.
	Many of our constituents are bemused by our sheer powerlessness, and by the fact that we have not been able to get our act together to get the necessary workable legislation in place to ensure that we can achieve our goal.

John McDonnell: That's what the last lot said.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am sorry that I missed the earlier part of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) for the measured way in which he has represented his constituents in the debate. He is fortunate to represent this constituency, but he also recognises that this area is a centre of national life and that there are bound to be demonstrations here. One should thank him for that.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington for tabling the amendment and for his consistency in standing up for civil liberties and the right to protest. We have debated Parliament square on many occasions. Indeed, a Select Committee once took it upon itself to examine the issue, and the former Member for Macclesfield, Sir Nicholas Winterton, invited me to give evidence. The Committee sat in due deliberation for several weeks discussing Parliament square. I gave my evidence, and the former Member for Macclesfield questioned me at some length. I think the House is beginning to get the flavour of the occasion. A report was duly prepared and legislation was duly proposed. That legislation was duly carried, and duly challenged in the courts.
	The Herculean parliamentary effort to remove Brian Haw and non-existent protestors from Parliament square succeeded in being passed into law-and the only person unaffected by it was Brian Haw, because he successfully challenged the legislation on the basis that he was a pre-existing resident of Parliament square. One has to pay tribute to Brian Haw for making legal history by doing nothing more than taking up residence in Parliament square. Parliament made itself look a total ass during the whole process, sitting in all due majesty, but having no effect whatever on what Parliament wanted to achieve. We should thank Brian Haw for that. I know he has not been well recently, and I am sure all Members will join me in wishing him well in his recovery. He has shown courage, principle and determination. Not everybody agrees with him, but I think we have to respect it when somebody is prepared to give up such a long period of their life for a cause. Let us all respect it and admire it.
	We should also recognise something about the importance of this building and this area of London. The previous Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, had a plan for reducing traffic in Trafalgar square. He succeeded by closing the north side to through traffic and wanted to carry out a similar plan for Parliament square. I am not sure which side of Parliament square was due to be closed, but we should think about this. I feel constantly sorry for the number of visitors arriving to see Parliament. Because of the size of the building, the difficulty of ensuring its security and so forth, the number of people who get in is much smaller than the number who would like to get in. I realise that we are slowly changing that, which is welcome, but most people have to spend most of their time fighting traffic lights and motor traffic simply to see the building. We should invite the Mayor to revisit the whole question of traffic planning, traffic layout, widening pavements and reducing traffic through the square so that everyone can see a very fine and very beautiful building, and enjoy the experience. It is possible to spend some time seeing other national assemblies and Parliaments around the world without having to dodge traffic-I am thinking of the United States, Sweden and a number of other places.
	History often turns on itself on these occasions. This country is very good at the incorporatist view of history, as I put it. It is ironic, and many visitors do not always appreciate it, that Oliver Cromwell has a statue outside Parliament, while further up the road is a statue of Charles I and, indeed, not so far away, one of Charles II. They are all part of our history, and they should all be remembered and commemorated for what they did. Many people are vilified for their protests, yet commemorated later. Why do we have a plaque in St Stephen's entrance to Marjory Hume, who chained herself to a statue there? The statue was damaged during the removal of her chains, when she was there demanding votes for women. Downstairs we have a plaque to Emily Wilding Davison, who locked herself in the broom cupboard to protest about the census of 1911 and in support of voting rights for women. Many other examples of people who have participated in protest outside this building and in this area have become part of our history and part of the road towards what one hopes will be a more democratic society.
	Attitudes have changed quite a lot. The Sessional Orders used to be enforced extremely rigorously so that whenever the House was sitting no procession was allowed within a mile of Parliament. The police then relented slightly and changed their attitude. As I recall it, the first time they relented was when General Pinochet was in this country-detained in luxury in Virginia Water. "El Pikete", as it was known, the Chilean picket that dogged him all the time, had a candle-lit event overnight in Parliament square. It was approved by the police and was an iconic and memorable event; it was part of our history that Pinochet was here. The Stop the War protest took over the square on 18 March 2003. When we debated Trident, the CND protest was here, and others have drawn attention to protests by Tamils, by pig farmers, by the Countryside Alliance and by the pro-hunting lobby-all kinds of people have demonstrated in Parliament square. We are a national Parliament. We are supposed to be the focus of political debate. I think that we make ourselves look more than a little ridiculous if we go to enormous lengths to stop people demonstrating outside Parliament. It is part of a democratic tradition, and it is part of our life.
	Every Member will have observed, on television, what happened in Tahrir square in Cairo, in the central square in Tunis or at the Pearl roundabout in Bahrain, and will probably have said "Good on you, well done, you have stood up against a state that tried to prevent you from demonstrating." I am not suggesting that the current regime or indeed any other regime in Britain is or has been the equivalent of the regimes in those countries, but I do believe that the principle of the right to protest and to dissent is the very stuff and centre and heart of a democratic society. I hope the House will recognise that the amendments are designed to ensure that the traditional right to protest is maintained, and that protests can take place outside.
	The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster said that aesthetic considerations should apply to a world heritage site, and that is true. Some would argue that siting the wheel-the London Eye-across the road was aesthetically inappropriate. Indeed, I advanced that argument very strongly, and for the first 15 years of the London Eye's existence I refused to go on it. I finally swallowed my pride, relented and went on it last year, and it is a fine experience, particularly on a cloudy day when it is impossible to see anything. I still consider that siting it there disfigured the area, but anyway it has happened.
	The hon. Gentleman said that because this was a world heritage site, protests should not be allowed. At least, I think that that is was he was saying, and I do not entirely go along with him. Protests have taken place outside Menwith Hill listening station in Yorkshire for a very long time. Which is the bigger eyesore, the protest or the listening station? I think I know the answer to that, and I think everyone else does as well.

Jeremy Corbyn: I was not trying to put words into the hon. Member's mouth. The agreement of the police to the anti-Pinochet demonstration some years ago showed sensitivity, intelligence and involvement on their part. If we approach the issue in a co-operative way, recognising the right to protest, rather than immediately reaching for the law and the barricades and confiscating equipment, we may proceed a bit further down the road.

John McDonnell: The problem with the Bill is that it addresses the issue of protesters sleeping in the square overnight, but does not adequately address the concept of permanence. The peace protesters say "We are not here permanently; we are just here while the country is at war. Cease the wars and we will depart."

Jeremy Corbyn: That is a fair point. It does no harm for Members who come into and go out of the building every day to be reminded that we are involved in wars. I do not think that we should be, but others disagree. In any event, we need to be reminded of the decisions we have taken and of why we have taken them, and there is a constant reminder out there.
	British television shows what some people consider to be shocking scenes in Westminster on the occasion of the state opening of Parliament, but other people around the world say to me "Thank God you live in a democracy where protest is allowed even on a day like that." The Queen goes past in the gilded coach, and we see Brian Haw behind her. I think he once gave her a wave, actually. That is an example of protest in a democracy.
	Other countries have experienced significant protests, such as Mexico. After the 2006 election, the result of which was hotly disputed, 1 million people occupied the centre of Mexico City for weeks on end in encampments. The mayor of Mexico city decided that it was impossible to move them, and that it would be wrong to do so because they were mounting a legitimate protest. Had he tried to move them, the consequences would probably have been pretty serious and severe.
	Democracy is never simple or straightforward, and our image is never straightforward. We do not live on a chocolate box cover or in a postcard environment. We live in a working parliamentary building, and that working parliamentary building ought to be the centre of our democracy. The centre of our democracy is the right to support, the right to protest, the right to dissent, the right to campaign. It is a very powerful tradition.
	This House is full of powerful traditions. I think of Charles Bradlaugh and the way he stood up for what he believed, and Tony Benn standing up on the issue of hereditary peerages, and so many others. They are part of our life and our history. We will make ourselves look very silly if we simply stop people taking part in such protests, because if we deny them the right to protest here, they will protest somewhere else; we will move the law somewhere else and make ourselves look even more ridiculous. We should be a bit grown up about this and accept that diversity and differences of view are good things. That is what makes a democracy vibrant and real.

Julian Huppert: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Members who have spoken on this topic so far. I absolutely respect the stance of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), the passion with which he has spoken on these issues over so many years, and the spirit in which he moved his amendments. I had some sympathy for him, especially after the past 13 years, when he appealed to the Liberal vision of freedom and said that he could not appeal to his own party's tradition on that.
	It is also a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field), who clearly knows about these topics, and who perhaps represents in his constituency more historic buildings than I do in Cambridge, which I envy slightly.  [Interruption.] It is close, however, as he says.
	It was great that the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) paid tribute to one of my predecessors as Member for Cambridge, Oliver Cromwell, who was probably one of the greatest political reformers the House has ever had. I am not saying I agree with everything he did, but as he is one of my predecessors, I feel I should speak up for him.
	Peaceful protest plays a critical role in our country, and I hope that everybody agrees that we should encourage and respect it-I hope we all share that spirit. It is good that the Government are undoing some of the worst things the previous Government did in this area. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the speed of the changes and his wish that they would move faster. I am grateful for the progress that has been made however, and I will continue to try to unwind even faster all the problems that have arisen.
	I am not as persuaded as some of the Members serving on the Public Bill Committee-both Government and Opposition-that the encampment in Parliament square is a problem. I do not share the concerns about it being an eyesore; although it is not something I particularly like to see, it does not bother me. We also had a discussion about the effect on tourism, and I do not share that concern to the same extent as some other Members.
	I am delighted that the Government are repealing sections 132 to 138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. We said we would do that when we came into government-both coalition parties were clear on that. The key question is: should there be any lesser replacement for those provisions? The Metropolitan police have made their attitude to peaceful protest very clear. I have been pressing them on this in the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I have the pleasure of serving. They are very clear that their role is not to prevent peaceful protest, and it is not even to allow peaceful protest; Assistant Commissioner Lynne Owens was very clear that their role is to facilitate peaceful protest. That is absolutely right. The job of the police is to make it easier for such protests to take place. That does not mean I agree with all the protests-I happen to disagree absolutely with a number of them-but the role of the police must be to try to make it easier for them to happen.
	The key question was put very clearly by the director of Liberty, Shami Chakrabarti-she is always very clear-when she asked: what is the harm? I should declare an interest: I used to be on the national council of Liberty, so I am perhaps biased in my opinion of her, but I am sure that other hon. Members would join me in paying tribute to her efforts over so many years in that cause. We need to address the question: what is the harm? We should be having only those controls appropriate to that harm. I do not agree with the level of assessment of harm put forward by some people so I understand the separate blocs of amendments suggested by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, although I hope he is not going to put them all to the vote, because that would take a long time and some of us were hoping to get home to do some constituency work tonight.
	The idea of having no constraints is unlikely to attract support-that is a shame, but I have accepted that that is the case-so the debate has been about the practicality of how to work out something that interferes as little as possible with the right to peaceful protest, which I take extremely seriously. We discussed a number of aspects of that in Committee.

Julian Huppert: That is a very good point. A range of legislation applies, and in Committee we discussed some aspects that could or could not be used. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to make that point, but the question is whether the provisions before us are required.
	I do not propose to detain the House by going through all the discussions we had in Committee, because I am sure that Members can read  Hansard, if they have not already done so-I am sure that many Members have. Questions arise on the scale of activity. There is a spectrum and we need to consider: who should be allowed to do what; how often; and for how long? The worst of the Bill's original proposals was the one to give council officials, or even non-council officials given authority by a council, the power to use reasonable force to try to deprive a protestor of an item of property. I was extremely alarmed by that. I am not comfortable with the idea that those people, who are not trained, should be allowed to use that power, and I was not alone. I thank the Minister for listening to me when I voiced my concerns early on and for having to endure our talking about it extensively in Committee.
	In one of the Committee's evidence sessions, I asked what our witnesses thought about that proposal. Shami Chakrabarti, from Liberty, made her position very clear:
	"I am also very nervous about non-police personnel exercising those powers."
	None of us would be surprised about that. Metropolitan police assistant commissioner Lynne Owens made the point that police officers receive a lot of training and operate within a legislative framework and a misconduct procedure, but she said:
	"The provision on the use of force would make us nervous." --[ Official Report, Police Reform and Social Responsibility Public Bill Committee, 20 January 2011; c. 113, Q32.]

Mark Field: As the hon. Gentleman will have gathered from my contribution, I have considerable sympathy with what he is saying. However, how would he view the counter-argument, which is that there is a risk of upping the ante by having people in uniform-police officers-doing this work, rather than making this a local-authority-related civil offence? Does he think there is a risk that bringing uniformed officers into the piece could turn a peaceable situation nasty?

Julian Huppert: There would be no requirement to bring the police in if one did not want to use "reasonable force" powers. I am very alarmed at the idea of a council official, who might not be particularly well trained, who might not be in uniform and who might not have any obvious form of authority, having the power to use reasonable force in such an instance. If I was involved in a situation like that, I would not expect that person to have such powers. If one did not wish to escalate the situation, one could simply not use reasonable force-one could use no force at all.

Mark Field: But does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the use of the words "reasonable force" in the legislation is to protect the council officer, rather than to reflect what might take place?

Julian Huppert: I think that that was indeed the intention, but "reasonable force" is not a beautifully defined phrase and it is tough to define it. It is particularly tough for people who are not experienced to work out what is and what is not "reasonable force", particularly in a situation that may well be inflamed. I would not want to see council officials having to make those tough judgment calls.
	That brings to me to the comments made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart), who used to be a police officer and policed public order situations. He made the point that it is hard enough as a police officer to deal with such situations during public order protests. Some people will resist and some will be reluctant to accept authority, and that is in the context of the specific training received by the police, which would realistically not be available to council officials. Bringing police into such a situation, if it escalates, is relatively easy. We are talking about an area that the police can get to pretty quickly if requested-I do not think we are short of police officers around Parliament. Bringing the police in would also comply with other situations. For example, bailiffs will often have the police standing by; they hope not to use them, but they are available if necessary.
	The power for council officials and others to take such action was, to me, the single worst item in this part of the Bill and I am therefore delighted that after a number of discussions the Minister and the Government propose to get rid of it. I thank the Minister for his work and for accepting the points that were made. We are not yet in the position I would like to reach, and I hope that there will be opportunities in the other place to discuss the next level up and whether those council officials should make judgments about property confiscation.
	I am relatively relaxed, within the context of the framework, with the idea that council officials should be able to give a direction, because non-trained officers are often allowed to do that. Confiscation powers give me a little more pause for thought, however, and I hope that the Minister will consider them. I hope that he will also reflect on our discussions in Committee and elsewhere about the interplay of various other aspects of the situation. A direction can be given lasting for 90 days, it can be given orally and it can be given by one of the officials. I understand the reason for each part-for example, I understand why an oral direction would be needed for a large crowd-and that is why I do not think that the amendments dealing with senior police officers will work. If there were a large number of people, it would be odd to make one police officer go round individually to each one.
	There need to be some constraints. A 90-day period under an oral direction is very hard on the person subjected to it, so there should be a written record if at all possible. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that and give us some assurances that such a provision will be made in the legislation, expressed in his comments or contained in regulations.

Paul Flynn: The Prime Minister, in one of his more messianic moods, recently told the House that he defended the right to protest from Tahrir square to Trafalgar square. It would not have had the same resonance had he said from Tahrir square to Parliament square, because of the Bill before us today.
	I do not know whether Members are familiar with some of the restrictions on our rights as hon. Members to raise certain issues. On two occasions, I have read out the names of the fallen in Iraq and later in Afghanistan, but it is no longer possible to do that because it would be declared out of order-a ruling was made in the previous Parliament. It is now very difficult to read out the names from Afghanistan because there are 320 and, if one included the ranks, it would take half an hour to read them out. We are forbidden as MPs to read out the names of the fallen in the wars who died as a result of our decisions. A woman read out the names of those who had fallen in Iraq at the end of Downing street, and for doing so she was arrested and jailed under, I believe, the Terrorism Act 2000.
	Other restrictions have been introduced more recently. There has been a change to the route by which the bodies of the fallen are taken through Wootton Bassett. They will not be taken by that route, a good reason has been given and the town has been given a royal prefix as a tribute to what its people have done. I think we all appreciate the reminder they gave us; it was a powerful picture to see the bodies being brought through Wootton Bassett and to hear the sobs of the families. The grief is obvious on the television. That will not happen any more.
	Twice last year, the names of the fallen were announced first on a Monday and next on a Tuesday, and it was only as a result of points of order and early-day motions that we returned to having announcements made at the right time, when they should be made: at Prime Minister's questions, a time of maximum attendance in this House and maximum attention from the world outside.
	I am afraid that the previous Government and this Government want to ignore the consequences of our actions. For 10 years Brian Haw, heroically, has given us and many people in the country a reminder of our decisions.

Denis MacShane: The practice of the Prime Minister's reading out the names of those who have fallen in Iraq or Afghanistan started in June 2003 with Tony Blair. It never happened before. Does my hon. Friend think that we should have read out those names in the Kosovo conflict, the first Iraq war or the Falklands conflict?

Paul Flynn: In the first world war there were pages in newspapers listing the fallen and those missing in action, so it would not have been practical then, but it is practical in this conflict. Sadly, we are still losing soldiers-about one soldier a week dies in Afghanistan-so it is absolutely right to continue reading out their names and making such announcements. The Government should not stop doing that. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend agrees that MPs should be forbidden from reading out the names of the fallen, but I do not think that was a reasonable decision. I have challenged it and been stopped and I am sure that you would stop me now, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I attempted to read out the names of the fallen.
	We really must pay tribute to Brian Haw. On nights when we have finished here and gone out, even in the middle of winter and sometimes in the early hours of the morning, he has been there, night after night, with his simple, anti-war message. Whether we agree with him or not he deserves our admiration and we do not need any attempt to sweep him and his companions out of sight to have a cosmetic effect on the square for an event that will be forgotten in a few years' time.
	I agree entirely with those who have said that the right to protest is honourable. It is a matter of pride when visitors come to London from countries in which any sign of protest would be swept away from their well-manicured streets and tourist attractions. The majority of the world's countries would not allow such protest to take place in such a situation, but we are better and more advanced than them, and we should be proud that we have the right to protest. It is not available in the House, as it might be, but it is in Parliament square.

Simon Hart: I join the diverse coalition of interests championing the right to protest in Parliament square, but I suspect that that is where the similarity between my interests and theirs comes to an end. Suffice it to say that the Government's proposals take us a long way towards the goal we are all attempting to reach. Some Members might be aware that between 2000 and 2004 I was responsible for eight protests, in different forms, in and around Parliament square, six of which were resoundingly successful but two of which were not. I shall explain why things went wrong on those two. In each circumstance there were conditions that made it almost impossible for the police to safeguard the community and the protestors in a reasonable way. We are getting away from that situation and I commend the Government for their measures in that regard.
	In championing the rights of legitimate protest, there are three areas that I want to address-accessibility, affordability and spontaneity. My first point on accessibility is fairly obvious: most protestors need to have the necessary access to make their point while the interests of other users of Parliament square and this building, as well as those of members of the public going about their business, are safeguarded.
	Affordability is a rather different issue. It must be in the interests of those of us in this House and outside it to ensure that people who wish to protest can do so with the minimum of obstacles in their way in the lead-up to their protest. If any protestor has to go through a process that involves going as far as obtaining a licence in some instances-not in this one, I add-we will be putting obstacles in the way of those who wish to register, often in the only way they can, their distaste for what we are doing in this House.

Paul Flynn: Does the hon. Gentleman's tolerance for protest extend to defending those who invaded this Chamber in support of a cause that he represented?

Simon Hart: I shall say only that I am surprised that it took so long for that point to be made. I prefaced my contribution by saying that I was going to discuss legitimate protest, so I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question.
	I want to discuss spontaneity. It is vital that we enable people who wish to do so to rise up in anger, frustration and exasperation and express their view loudly and lawfully in the minimum amount of time. If there was a problem with the previous legislation it was that the preparation time for protest was rather lengthy if people followed the measures sequentially. The Government's proposals will ease that, which is why I am a big supporter, but it is right and proper to enable people who have read the papers one morning metaphorically to bang on the gates the next morning. If we prevent them from doing so we will fall into the trap to which most speakers have referred of setting one set of rules for our country while condemning those in other countries who adopt a different procedure on protests.
	I have referred to the two occasions on which protests in which I was involved went wrong. The first took place in 2004, and there was a legitimate presence of angry protesters as well as of police to ensure the safety of the community. The protesters came that day with every intention of being peaceful, and the police policed the event with every intention of its remaining peaceful. However, Members who have taken part in a protest know that it is a potent and often high-temperature environment, and it does not take much to spark something that leads to a sequence of events which, in our case, led to 425 complaints from members of the public, about 60 people being treated in hospital for serious head injuries, a number of arrests, and an inquiry by the Independent Police Complaints Commission that lasted nearly a year, cost a fortune and regrettably resulted in a number of Metropolitan policemen being recommended for disciplinary action or worse. That was a thoroughly unsatisfactory conclusion to what should have been a perfectly legitimate protest.
	We could debate the cause for hours, but I will suggest one particular reason for ending up in that unsavoury position. Both parties were the victims of legal rigidity. In the case of the protesters, there was arguably not enough flexibility to enable nearly 20,000 people at one stage to engage in reasonable protest. From the police's point of view, the confines or boundaries were set too tightly to enable them to adapt and adjust their policing as the protest unfolded over the day. When the IPCC report was eventually published, it focused on three things including, first, a complete breakdown of communications for technical reasons between the police and the protesters. That is not an issue for the Government-it is an issue for protesters and police in future-but the second and third reasons are important.
	The IPCC confirmed without any doubt that the lack of loudspeaker equipment in the south-east corner of Parliament square led to an inability by the organisers and the police to communicate with a crowd that was contained and angry, which led to unfortunate downstream consequences. That happened because there was confusion about whether Westminster city council, I think, would allow us to have loudspeakers lest we contravene noise abatement conditions. In the circumstances, the police, in my humble opinion, should have had the operational ability to insist on having equipment on site that could prevent that incident arising in the first place.

Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point. During one of the Tamil demonstrations that I attended with a number of colleagues from the House, loud speakers were not allowed for the demonstration. People needed to be moved, because there was a crush in one corner, and the police lent us loud hailers so that we could address the crowd. One could argue that that is breaking the law, but it was sensible and practical. We just need to be a bit more sensible, because there is a safety issue about being unable to communicate with a loud crowd.

Simon Hart: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The short answer to his question is yes, notwithstanding my earlier comments about the need for spontaneity in-perhaps smaller-events. Steps are being taken in the right direction. However, having been personally responsible for a number of events between 2000 and 2004, I know that we were always led to believe that lessons had been learned from previous protests, but it became quite clear that they had not.
	In more recent events in and around Parliament square, and indeed at the G20 demonstrations, it was quite obvious that some of the findings of the IPPC report, which were produced several years ago, had not been implemented, which was unfortunate. Perhaps there is some value, despite the views of one or two Opposition Members, to having this discussion and debate yet again, because it would perhaps lead us a little closer to a situation that is in the interests of protesters first and foremost and parliamentarians last and least.
	The third point made in the IPCC's findings was loosely described as relating to lines. I recall only too vividly being told at my meeting with the responsible commander on the morning of the demonstration in September 2004 that there was an invisible line-a line on his order paper-across which protestors could not pass under any circumstances. It was a ludicrous situation, as he admitted. We explained that it was ludicrous because there was no way to guarantee safely with 20,000 people that none of them would at any stage drift across that line for one reason or another. Flexibility was needed, but there was none. The result was that when protestors did drift across the line, officers fulfilled their orders, which was absolutely right, and started to make arrests, which led to a sudden and irreversible rise in the temperature. That contributed to the transition from an angry but peaceful protest to one that fell apart and resulted in serious injuries for a number of protestors and career-threatening implications for the officers concerned.

John McDonnell: That is an extremely valid point. When a particular line is used to demarcate a geographical area, often the protest spills out into another area and matters become confusing. On that basis, I believe that the legislation will simply lead to encampments elsewhere. It is almost a provocation for other encampments breaking out around the city. We should watch Trafalgar square in future; we will be back here in a few months' time, with Members urging us to bring forward further legislation to deal with other areas of London.

Simon Hart: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. He might be interested to learn that a week after the demonstration we held in September 2004 in Parliament square, the same angry army protested outside the Labour party conference in Brighton. It would be fair to say that the organisers-me-were getting quite nervous at that stage about what might happen in Brighton, but the lessons learned by Sussex police in those few short days in between the two protests were very evident when we got there, because they successfully achieved a flexible attitude to protestors, and as the temperature rose so they retreated, and vice versa.
	The second point that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) made, which I should address, and which the Metropolitan police acknowledged at the time and subsequently, is that although the law said one thing back in those days, which was, "You cannot march within a mile of the Palace of Westminster when Parliament is sitting," its enforcement by the police would have been entirely foolhardy. They knew and made it very clear to us that, had they prevented legitimate and angry protestors coming to the gates of Parliament to make their point, the consequences might have been even worse.
	I am encouraged by the fact that the Government are moving a significant, if not the whole, way towards a situation in which there is greater recognition of the arguments that I have set out-enabling, I hope, the police to exercise that operational flexibility which is so important, which was so lacking and which led so directly to very unfortunate injuries and consequences for a large number of people who were already angry and frustrated.
	I endorse absolutely the comments made by pretty well every other speaker. We should not underestimate the anger and the frustration sometimes at the consequences of the decisions that we make in this House, or the helplessness felt by many people who perhaps reside a long way from here, who can play no part in the political process and for whom protest is the only way in which they can make their feelings loudly and clearly heard not just to us in here, but to the media and the wider public.
	I support any measure that makes it easier for protestors to exercise that absolutely ancient and important right, and I am not persuaded by arguments, which I hope will be put not too seriously, that the tidiness of Parliament square for the royal wedding is somehow more important than the ability of people to protest. If in the next few weeks we make a decision that has profound consequences for very many people, and those very many people wish to make their feelings heard, why on earth should they not do so? If that happens to coincide with the royal wedding, I argue that their right to protest is far more important, and I am glad that the Government recognise that point and are enabling protest to take place legitimately.

Denis MacShane: I much appreciate the speech from the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart)-his apologia pro vita sua.
	I am trying to find out who was responsible for the dramatic changes to Parliament in my short time here, including, for example, the security screen that we now have between us and the Public Gallery. That came about because somebody who felt passionately about the cause of Fathers 4 Justice also felt that he had the right to come in here and throw a pink powder over the Bench-actually, where the hon. Gentleman is sitting; it did not quite arrive on the Front Bench. As a result, we changed the security laws dramatically.
	Then, people felt so passionately about fox hunting that an hon. Member allowed a protestor to infiltrate this very Chamber, and as a result we have much tougher security. In the name of protest, we thus have a denial of the right of British citizens to come freely and easily into this House of Commons. When I was first elected, not so long ago, I took an American intern to Central Lobby, where he watched people coming in. I told him, "Any citizen can come here and ask to see his Member of Parliament," and he replied, "My God. You let your voters get that close?"
	On Monday night, I hosted the Belarus Free Theatre with Mr Jude Law and Kevin Spacey, the two actors. It was a marvellous moment, except that our police-acting under orders; I do not blame them-kept out the men who had been booted out of Belarus by dictatorial policemen. They were not even allowed into our House of Commons in time, so we need to set in some context the importance of access to this Parliament for MPs and for citizens who want to exercise their parliamentary, political and constitutional right to talk to their MPs.

Denis MacShane: My point is that we have now instituted such draconian security systems as a result of the invasion of this House-I do not think the hon. Gentleman was here at the time-and the attack from the Gallery that things have become all but impossible, and the police famously do not have the flexibility to allow certain people to come through ahead of ordinary-

Denis MacShane: Having enjoyed many happy meals with you in Strasbourg, Mr Deputy Speaker, I always thought we were sharing the same plate.
	I will not enter into the question of reading out the names of those who have fallen in war, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) animadverted at great length, and the curious proposition that if one person falls his name should be mentioned, but if 20 or 100 fall there are too many names to read out.
	We return, then, to a very important point-the centrality of Parliament and all democratic institutions to which all people should have easy and free access. In several democracies, there is, for good reason, the notion of the parliamentary mile, which means that for approximately 1 mile-a given space-around a Parliament, there should be no protests or demonstrations, and lawmakers should be able to go into their Parliament without being shouted at, as was the case here for a number of years by the Iraq war protester with the very loud loudspeaker. We should certainly be able to confront citizens who are protesting or on their way to attend their protests in Trafalgar square, Speaker's corner in Hyde park, or wherever. One only has to walk up Whitehall to see a demonstration outside the Prime Minister's house every day, but a Parliament is not a pressure cooker; it is a place for deliberation.
	I recall being outside the White House a few years ago when there was a protest about President Clinton's policy on Haitian refugees, and Arthur Ashe, the tennis player, was arrested and taken away. Those protestors were very brave. They went there, they knew they were going to be arrested, and they were making a profound point. However, American law says that when the President is in the White House-or when Congress is sitting-people cannot organise demonstrations directly under his nose.
	That is a very important principle that dates back to the 19th century-

Mark Field: rose -

Jeremy Corbyn: rose -

John McDonnell: rose -

Julian Huppert: rose -

Mark Field: But surely the right hon. Gentleman recognises that this flies in the face of many of the great traditions of democracy that we have in this country. Nothing could be worse, in the current environment, than having the political class divorced evermore from the public at large.

Denis MacShane: I took part in Saturday's demonstration, and that showed that the political class, at least those among it who care for public services, is not divorced-although part of it is, given that the Home Secretary said last week that the only march she has been on was to protect foxes, not to protect libraries and disabled people from cuts.
	Our forefathers won the right to vote in the great demonstrations of the 1880s by shaking down the railings of Hyde park. Since my school and student days, I have marched, and marched again, in London, but I have not demanded to come and stay here permanently or to scream abuse at MPs coming into the House. I am happy to go up to Downing street to join protests that I associate myself with. That is right, fit and proper. This is not about the political class. Frankly, we have allowed a general degrading and devaluation of the role of MPs. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) is not disconnected. No hon. Member is disconnected: we go back to our constituencies and talk to far more people than any journalist, pontificator or professional. I still say that we should protect the notion that Parliament is a special place and not just another venue for whatever protest people feel passionate about.

Denis MacShane: Yes; if one goes to the Chinese embassy in Portland place, the Falun Gong are always there. I am not talking about the other streets of London, and I am not talking about Downing street; I am talking exclusively about the law-making building of our nation, which requires slightly different consideration. I do not see that as the political class dividing itself from the population. I want more protest. However, that is different from saying that one particular issue can stay there for ever. One could be flippant and say that we could have a rota of issues. There could be a right-wing protest, when the fascists, the British National party and the UK Independence party can all come and make their little points.
	I think that we are conspiring-perhaps that is an exaggerated word-in devaluing the centrality of democratically elected legislatures when we allow protest and noise. Of course it is not preventing anybody from getting in, although hon. Members were prevented from coming in by the foxhunting protest.

Julian Huppert: rose-

Mark Field: rose-

Julian Huppert: I am having trouble following the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's argument. He is right to say that this is a place of deliberation, and I think we all share the belief that there should not be protests inside this Chamber, other than those of Members of Parliament. However, we are not talking about that, we are not talking about protests in the Members' Lobby or Central Lobby, and we are not even talking about allowing protests within the precincts of the Palace. We are talking only about protests outside the Palace of Westminster. That is outside of where the deliberation is happening. I would love him to explain why he thinks it is all right to protest outside Downing street, but not outside the Palace.

Mark Field: Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept the fear that many of us in this Chamber feel, that once we go down the path of saying that Parliament-

Denis MacShane: I am so sorry. I was just trying to put the interventions together to save time-your time, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	I shall try to explain my point to the hon. Member for Cambridge. It is a concept common in many countries, and Britain can exclude itself from it, that the legislators of the democracy should be able to come to the area around the legislature-not around the Executive, not outside Downing street, not in the great centres where people gather such as Trafalgar square or Hyde park, and not anywhere else, such as outside embassies or town halls, but outside Parliament-without being told directly how or on what to vote at that moment. Anybody can come to my surgery on a Saturday or write to me to tell me how to vote. We have colluded in saying that Parliament needs to be protected from the people, which is why we have the absurd security systems that are now in place. If we do not re-establish the principle of parliamentarianism being something that requires reflection, debate and deliberation, with all of us voting in the Aye or the No Lobby to pass a law, and if we say that Parliament is simply an adjunct to a process of protest, it will weaken Parliament.
	I will take the intervention, but I will then sit down because other colleagues may want to speak.

Denis MacShane: I am happy to accept the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman's point of view. Arguments have been held for 200 or 300 years about whether Parliament is different from the Executive, and whether elected representatives have something called privilege-not just privilege to speak in Parliament but privilege to come here and make up their minds on how to speak and vote as they see best.
	We have been talking about an individual, and I admire his sacrifice over a number of years, but let us remember what happened not so long ago when passions were so high that the very security of this place was changed. As a result, the one, 100, 1,000 or 10,000 demonstrators who had filled Parliament square for their particular moment, expressing their right to protest directly to parliamentarians within the narrow area around Parliament, found that they had prevented many other citizens from being able to enter freely into the House of Commons to discuss matters with us calmly and peacefully.
	There is a difference of opinion, and I respect everybody's point of view. I am just dismayed that compared with when I came into the House, the level of security has changed, denying people access to MPs, as a result of protests that have gone too far and gone wrong. That has caused us some damage. I see quite good rules working in other democracies. If anybody wants to be arrested in Parliament square, or walk through it to make a protest and move on, so be it. However, the notion that there should be a permanent encampment or that Parliament square should be a place where anybody can come to protest at any time goes just a bit too far.

Michael Ellis: I respect the views of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I do not agree with them, but I respect them and the way in which he expressed them. However, I strongly support the provisions in the Bill.
	I respect the right to protest, but a number of speakers in the debate have conflated or confused the issue of protest with that of the encampment outside. This is not a personality driven debate, or it should not be, and one should not sentimentalise the issues involved. I wish to focus, I hope succinctly, on the rights and views of people other than the handful of individuals who have been camped outside for a prolonged period.
	People have the right of quiet enjoyment of Parliament square and the facilities therein. I remind hon. Members that the statues have been put up over many years by public subscription. The public have a right to enjoy them, but for at least the past six months there have been fences around them. The taxpayers-not only the residents of the cities of Westminster and London, but people who come from far and wide to Parliament square and Parliament-have the right to use the park, and perhaps have a lunch sandwich.
	Some consideration ought also to be given to the servants and agents of this place, and to the police who help to guard it and have to stand in very close proximity to the protest all day for month after month.

John McDonnell: rose -

Michael Ellis: I am sorry, I cannot give way, because I have been told that I have only two minutes.
	The reality is that the encampment is not a traditional form of protest, as it has been described. In my respectful submission, the problem does not have much to do with aesthetics, either. I, for one, am not really interested in what the protest looks like. I am interested in the rights of others to use the square without their quiet enjoyment being obstructed. The nuisance factor also has to be taken into consideration.
	The question of sleeping impedimenta is one of fact and degree. We frequently ask police constables to exercise their discretion in many areas of law, some of which are difficult to define, which is part of the reason why we must give them discretion. The term "reasonable" cannot be easily susceptible to definition, because what is "reasonable" will vary depending on the individual circumstances of the event.
	We in this country pride ourselves on protest and I certainly support the right to protest, but there must be some balance. Nowhere else in the world would put up with that type of protest over such a prolonged period. That does not mean that other countries are undemocratic for not putting up with 10 years of an encampment-of course they are democratic. They maintain proudly their democracy, and so would we, but we must balance the right of the handful of people who wish to live in Parliament square to the disadvantage of others, and bear in mind the rights of the latter.
	Hon. Members have asked, "What harm is being done by the protest?" Criminal damage is one example of harm. Anything that causes action to be taken by another amounts to criminal damage if it means undertaking repair work. Nuisance, noise, hygiene and health and safety issues, and the loss and effect on tourism, also indicate harm. Such persistent protests do harm. We seek not to stop demonstrations, but just to stop people permanently encamping and sleeping in the square, and disguising that as a right to protest.

Vernon Coaker: I shall be very brief and make only a couple of comments, because the Minister will need a few minutes to speak, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) will no doubt wish to respond to the debate for a couple of minutes before 5 o'clock. This has been a good debate-we also had one in Committee, when hon. Members on both sides raised many of the issues that we have debated this afternoon.
	The Opposition support the Government in the repeal of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 provisions. On both sides of the House, there is a general recognition that despite the intention, those provisions went much further than any of us would have wanted. For example, a woman was arrested for reading out the names of the war dead. Many of us-perhaps all of us-thought that inappropriate.
	The Opposition agree with the repeal of the SOCPA provisions, but our position has always been that there is a need to balance the right to protest with the right of others to enjoy Parliament, and to protect their freedom, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) said. We want to balance freedoms and to protect the right to protest.
	In Committee, we concentrated on the workability of the Bill. I say to the Minister that considerable problems remain. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington and my hon. Friends. He has carefully drafted, obviously with some help, a set of alternatives. I do not agree with his alternative, but he has also sought to address some of the problems that the Government seek to address.
	I am surprised that the Minister has tabled only two Government amendments-57 and 58-to deal with one of the major problems with the Bill, namely that reasonable force can be used not only by a constable, but by an authorised officer of the council. In the Opposition's view, the amendments simply do not go far enough. If my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington were minded to press amendment 185 to a Division, he would find support on the Opposition Front Bench.
	Why do the Government amendments not go far enough? The Bill still allows an authorised officer to do all sorts of things with respect to activities in the prohibited area of Parliament square. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) pointed out that even with the Government amendment, the Bill still gives the authorised officer-the council employee-significant powers to seize and retain property in the area described in clause 144(1). That is an extension of the power that one would expect authorised officers to have in any circumstances. This is the policing of public protest-not littering, loud music or neighbour nuisance-and the involvement of anybody other than a warranted police officer would be a dangerous extension of power to people who are not servants of the Crown.
	The devil will be in the detail. There is still not an adequate definition-the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) and I debated this in Committee-of "sleeping equipment". Lawyers will have a field day over this. The hon. Gentleman is right that we would expect an officer to act reasonably and so on, but there will be endless litigation over what reasonableness means in the Bill. What does "sleeping equipment" mean? Sleeping out? Sleeping on concrete? Is the concrete "sleeping equipment"? That is the sort of debate that we have started to get into? What would be the consequences of displacing this sort of activity? My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington made this point. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster will find that if we deal with the protest outside, it will simply move across the road or down the road, and similar problems will persist. In repealing the legislation-we support the repeal of SOCPA-the Government need to be extremely careful that they do not find themselves in exactly the same situation as the previous Government: with unworkable legislation that simply results in many court actions as people seek to exercise their right to protest.

James Brokenshire: This useful debate has given the House the opportunity to discuss an important issue. We made it clear when we introduced our proposals that it was right and proper that the House should have a proper say on the Bill's provisions relating to Parliament square, and I believe that the House has had that say this afternoon.
	There are clearly issues of agreement on both sides of the House. The right to protest is a cherished and important right that the Government seek to uphold, and it is a positive step forward if the Opposition Front-Bench team accept that fact and accept that the draconian approach that in many ways had become their hallmark was a wrong turn. I certainly welcome therefore the comments from the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) about scrapping SOCPA, which had a very chilling effect on the right to protest. That is why one of the fundamental effects of the Bill will be to scrap those provisions and to return to treating Parliament square the same, in many ways, as the rest of the country.
	The question before us relates to the extent of the right to protest. I think that it has been accepted that it is not an exhaustive right or something that we can do to the nth degree, and that there are limits to the right to protest. In her evidence to the Bill Committee, Shami Chakrabati made that point very clearly. We are discussing the limits to and the extent of that right. We have to take a step back and say, "We have that right to protest, but what is the issue at hand?" The issue at hand is that the right to protest does not mean the right to permanent encampment. That is at the heart of what we are seeking to address and why the provisions in the Bill are structured in the way they are.
	I hear those who say that it does not make any difference, that it is not a problem and that we should not be seeking to introduce changes in respect of Parliament square and the surrounding area that contrast with the rest of the country. However, I would make the point that the square has been fenced off for six months to allow remedial and repair work, and has therefore been unavailable, which has clearly affected not just people's access to it, but the right to protest there. That is why it is important that we examine the issue, and why the proposals in the Bill reflect that approach.

Bob Stewart: Is it not true that the vast majority of the public would think that any encampment outside Parliament should go? I have heard a lot of speeches this afternoon about why it should stay, but the vast majority of our public would say, "Get rid of it. It shouldn't be there."

James Brokenshire: The act of protest does not by default give individuals the right to erect permanent encampments in Parliament square or on the pavements outside it. That is the essence of what we are proposing. We want to protect the right to protest, but that does not mean that we endorse the permanent encampment that has arisen and that, in essence, has deprived others of access to that space.
	I heard the points that the hon. Member for Gedling made about practicability and workability-in some ways he summarised the reasonable discussions and detailed debate that we had in Committee. However, we have had discussions with the Metropolitan police-he will be aware of the exchange of correspondence-and I have spoken to Assistant Commissioner Lynne Owens in recent days, in advance of this afternoon's debate. One of the challenges has been about differences of ownership, between Greater London authority and Westminster city council, and ensuring that the proper protocols are agreed. However, with those protocols in place, our strong belief is that our proposals are workable; otherwise we would not be bringing them before the House.
	I hear the debate about the language and the drafting. The Government recognise that any new law will be robustly tested by determined individuals-indeed, that would be the case for any proposals. We have therefore sought to capture attempts to circumvent the legislation that have been raised with us by the police. However, that necessarily carries the potential of capturing others, which is why we have allowed some discretion, as it is important that the provisions should be used proportionately.
	Let me turn to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I suppose that the debate comes down to the context and this issue of a permanent encampment, which we think is so significant. As we have heard, Parliament square is a world heritage site, surrounded by important historic buildings such as Westminster abbey. Given its location opposite the Houses of Parliament and the limited space, we are seeking to balance the competing and legitimate needs of members of the public who come to the area as visitors or protesters, with those of Members of Parliament and others who need to be able to carry out their daily work and enjoy the space.
	The Government are clear that no one particular person or group of persons should take over the area to the detriment of others. Encampments remaining on Parliament square in defiance of the byelaws have caused significant damage to the garden and the space, which has underlined the unworkability of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act thus far. The encampments have required considerable remedial work by Greater London authority, during which time nobody has been able to enjoy the unique space. In relation to the democracy village occupation, the courts found that Parliament square gardens were not a suitable area for any sort of encampment. More recently, the High Court has said:
	"Parliament Square Gardens is not a suitable location for prolonged camping; such camping is incompatible with the function, lawful use and character"
	of Parliament square gardens, and
	"it is also inconsistent with the proper management of the area as a whole".
	The Government and, I think, most Members of this House and the other place would agree with the court's findings.
	Encampments prevent the public's enjoyment of this unique location and deter people from visiting the area. They even deter and prevent others from protesting, although I have heard the points that have been made in that regard. Let me stress again that we are not seeking to prevent people from protesting on or around Parliament square. We are not seeking to put time limits on protests or to regulate them in that way.
	The package of measures in part 3 is aimed at preventing encampments, at dealing with disruptive activity by anyone on Parliament square and at giving the police and authorised officers of the Greater London authority and Westminster city council powers to ensure that Parliament square can be enjoyed by all. So, for example, anyone who pitches a tent in the controlled area defined in the Bill may be directed to take it down. If they fail to comply with the direction, the tent may be seized and they may be charged with an offence.
	I welcome the constructive debate that we had in Committee, during which Opposition Members recognised the problem with the current SOCPA provisions and acknowledged the need for new measures. We have heard this afternoon, however, that some of them do not agree with our proposals and continue to have issues. We have introduced a co-ordinated package of provisions that will link into byelaws to ensure that the issues of displacement that have been identified are addressed.
	We have listened and reflected on what has been said, which is why the Government have tabled amendments 57 and 58, which deal with authorised officers using powers of force. We continue to believe that the right of authorised officers properly to manage and support the activities in Parliament square, and people's enjoyment of the square, requires them to have the ability to give directions and to seize items, but not to use reasonable force, because that is the role of the police. That is why we have tabled amendments 57 and 58. They reflect the point that has been highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and others inside and outside the House. We believe that the package in the Bill strikes a proportionate balance.
	We will continue our discussions with the police, with Westminster city council and with the Greater London authority on the management of Parliament square, and on any moves that might result in more co-ordinated ownership and management of the site. Fundamentally, we believe in the right to protest, but that right does not mean permanent encampments. The measures before the House are proportionate and appropriate, because they will enable those who want to protest to have their say outside the House while ensuring that that does not result in the permanent despoiling of Parliament square.

John McDonnell: I wish to press amendments 162 and 185 to a vote. The debate has been helpful in that it has reassured me that we support the right to protest. I look forward to Members joining me in protests in the coming months. There is a disagreement over the difference between protest and permanent protest. There is a tradition of effective permanent protest in this country, and that is the tradition that we are seeking to support.
	There is a basic human right, enacted in legislation in this Parliament, to assembly, association and speech. Members must have due cause if they want to tamper with that right in any way. If there is an argument that the encampment causes noise, nuisance or any form of obstruction, legislation already exists to deal with that. Indeed, the Minister has just demonstrated that the court is now dealing with the matter in relation to the grassed area. There is therefore no need for the House to waste its time in introducing specific legislation for a small encampment of principled people who are reminding us of the consequences of our actions in this House.
	Let me advise Members and warn that we will come back again on this issue. What we are doing here is counter-productive: it will cause further conflict; it will put police officers in an impossible position and council officers in an even worse position. The encampment will move elsewhere and the Government will then have to come back to the matter, as the last Government tried to do with their Civil Contingencies Bill to ban protest elsewhere and outside other public buildings. I believe that this is an error.
	I wish the coalition parties had adhered to their promise before the election to-
	 Debate interrupted (Programme Order, 30  March ).
	 The Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order 83E), That the amendment be made.

The House divided: Ayes 8, Noes 280.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 The Deputy Speaker t hen put forthwith the Question s necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

Amendment proposed: 185, in page 95, line 8, leave out 'or authorised officer'.- (John McDonnell.)
	 The House divided: Ayes 158, Noes 276.

Amendments made: 57, page 97, line 6, leave out
	'The constable or authorised officer'
	and insert 'A constable'.
	Amendment 58, page 97, line 7, leave out from 'under' to end of line 8 and insert 'this section'.- (James Brokenshire.)

Amendments made: 53, page 215, line 26, after first 'that', insert '-
	(a) the Secretary of State has consulted in accordance with section 2B and has determined that the order should be made, or
	(b) the Secretary of State has received a recommendation under that section that the order should be made.
	'(3A) The Secretary of State may make the determination mentioned in subsection (3)(a) only if'.
	Amendment 54, page 216, line 6, at end insert-
	'(6A) The power of the Secretary of State to make an order under this section is subject to section 2B.'.
	Amendment 55, page 216, line 10, at end insert-
	'2B Orders under section 2A: role of Advisory Council etc
	(1) Before making an order under section 2A the Secretary of State-
	(a) must consult as mentioned in subsection (2), or
	(b) must have received a recommendation from the Advisory Council to make the order.
	(2) The Secretary of State must consult-
	(a) the Advisory Council, or
	(b) if the order is to be made under section 2A(1) and the urgency condition applies, the person mentioned in subsection (3).
	(3) The person referred to in subsection (2)(b) is-
	(a) the person who is for the time being the chairman of the Advisory Council appointed under paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 1, or
	(b) if that person has delegated the function of responding to consultation under subsection (1)(a) to another member of the Advisory Council, that other member.
	(4) The "urgency condition" applies if it appears to the Secretary of State that the misuse of the substance or product to be specified in the order as a drug subject to temporary control, or the likelihood of its misuse, poses an urgent and significant threat to public safety or health.
	(5) The duty of the Advisory Council or any other person consulted under subsection (1)(a) is limited to giving to the Secretary of State that person's opinion as to whether the order in question should be made.
	(6) A recommendation under subsection (1)(b) that a temporary class drug order should be made may be given by the Advisory Council only if it appears to the Council that-
	(a) the substance or product is a drug that is being, or is likely to be, misused, and
	(b) that misuse is having, or is capable of having, harmful effects.'.
	Amendment 59, page 219, line 24, after '2A,' insert '2B,'.- (James Brokenshire.)
	Title
	 Amendment made: 56, line 3 after 'alcohol', insert ', and for the repeal of provisions about alcohol disorder zones;'.- (James Brokenshire.)
	 Third  Reading

Theresa May: I beg to move, That the Bill now be read the Third time.
	I start by thanking the hon. Members who sat on the Public Bill Committee for the scrutiny they have given this important piece of legislation. I thank in particular my ministerial colleagues, the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), for their work in Committee. I also thank all hon. Members who have contributed on Report, when we had further detailed debate about the impact and implications of the Bill. In addition, I thank all the officials and Officers and staff of the House who have enabled the Committee's work to take place.
	The Prime Minister recently said that we had the best police force in the world, and I agree, but that does not mean that there is no room for improvement. The Bill will help our courageous police in the fight against crime, and police and crime commissioners will reconnect the police with the public they serve. An overhaul of the licensing regime will help the police and local communities to crack down on problem drinking premises, and temporary banning powers will stop the harm from so-called legal highs. Powers to deal with permanent encampments will give Parliament square back to the British public and a fairer process for universal jurisdiction arrest warrants will allow Britain to engage properly with prominent international statesmen.

Mark Tami: Bearing in mind the reorganisation and costs involved, will the Home Secretary confirm that she will be at Monday's debate on police cuts?

Chris Bryant: rose -

Chris Bryant: Those words will not do her any good I am afraid, but I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way.
	I am sure we all agree that we have the best police force in the world. Has the Home Secretary come across Chief Constable Steve Finnigan of the Lancashire constabulary, who has said that
	"we can do an awful lot of work around back-office, around efficiency, around bureaucracy and certainly in Lancashire, in my force, we are doing a lot of that, but we cannot leave the frontline untouched and that is because of the scale of the cuts"?
	Will the Home Secretary be straight with the British people and say that there are going to be front-line cuts because of what she is bringing in?

Yvette Cooper: rose -

Yvette Cooper: I want to follow up that point with the Home Secretary. She is right, I have the full quote to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) referred, which was from the "Today" programme. Chief Constable Finnigan was asked:
	"You are chief constable of Lancashire which has a bit of both"-
	meaning urban and rural areas-
	"are you going to have to reduce frontline policing in order to meet the budget cuts that the government wants to see?"
	His answer was: "I absolutely am". Faced with that categorical statement from a chief constable, will she admit that front-line services are being hit as a result of her decisions?

Theresa May: I have to say to the right hon. Lady that her intervention and that of the hon. Member for Rhondda betray the difficulty that the Labour party has had, both in government and in opposition, with this issue on front-line services. Chief constables such as Chief Constable Steve Finnigan have said that they are determined to protect the front-line service that is provided to members of the public. There is a difference between the service that can be provided and the number of police who are there, and the trouble with Labour is that it has always focused on numbers. What we have seen recently is that there are great variations in, for example, invisibility and availability of the police who are out there on the streets being seen by members of the public. Percentages can vary from 9% of police being available and visible to the public to 17%, as in Merseyside. If that highest figure was followed by every force, then just under 8,000 more officers would be visible and available to members of the public. This is about the efficient use of resources. Police and crime commissioners, as I have said, will bring accountability to local policing.

Elfyn Llwyd: rose -

Geraint Davies: rose -

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is a good example, and there are other examples of forces such as Gloucestershire, where the number of officers visible and available has been increased by the chief constable as a result of what he has been able to do in other ways to deal with his budget.
	We have already given communities across England and Wales access to detailed street-level crime and antisocial behaviour data. Only two months after launching the country's first-ever nationwide street-level crime maps, the website has received over 400 million hits, so we are already giving power back to the public. The Bill takes that local accountability to the next stage. The Association of Chief Police Officers has been fully engaged in the process of refining our proposals. We have listened to its suggestions, and to those of hon. Members. We have responded and been able to accommodate some of those suggestions.
	We have included provision for each chief officer to become a corporation sole, which will allow them to employ staff and will give them greater control over their own force. We have strengthened the proposed oversight arrangements by including provisions for candidates to be subject to confirmation hearings by police and crime panels, who will be able to veto an appointment with a three-quarters majority. We have amended the Bill so that anyone who has been convicted of an imprisonable offence at any time will be unable to stand as a PCC. Any PCC convicted of such an offence would automatically be disqualified from office.
	We have made a commitment with ACPO, the Association of Police Authorities and the Association of Police Authority Chief Executives to develop a protocol setting out the distinct role and powers of chief officers, PCCs and other bodies in the new policing landscape. It will be my responsibility as Home Secretary to issue a strategic policing requirement for the response to national threats. These are all sensible and constructive changes that will give us a better Bill and ultimately an even better police service. I thank ACPO and hon. Members for their help with that.
	I am delighted that in Committee, the Opposition conceded the principle of democratic reform in policing. Unfortunately, they are still suggesting the wrong type of reform. Only 7% of people have even heard of police authorities, and only 8% of local authority wards in England and Wales are represented on their police authority. Police authorities are not effective at doing what they are supposed to do. Fewer than one in three police authorities inspected last year were found to be performing well. They have neither the democratic mandate to set police priorities nor the capability to scrutinise police performance, so tinkering at the edges of police authorities, as the Opposition spokesmen seemed to suggest in Committee, will not do.

Stephen McCabe: rose-

Theresa May: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am conscious of time and wish to make a little more progress.
	The Opposition's scepticism about the merits of directly elected police and crime commissioners will be tested when it comes to deciding whether to field candidates for the elections next year. Indeed, according to media reports, the former Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, intends to run as a candidate. Before moving on, I would like to make it clear that responsibility for policing and policing governance in Wales is reserved to this House. This House has determined that the provisions for police and crime commissioners should be implemented in Wales and in England. There cannot be two tiers of governance for a police service whose officers and assets so regularly cross the regional boundary between England and Wales in tackling crime.

Elfyn Llwyd: The reason they did not endorse it is quite simply because they do not believe in the idea of a directly elected police commissioner. They did not want the panels and so voted against the proposal. Unfortunately, this place decided to ride roughshod over their wishes and the wishes of democratically elected people in Wales, thus showing little of the respect agenda and acting in a hugely undemocratic way.

Theresa May: That is not correct. It is precisely because we respect the Assembly's decision that we are removing police and crime panels from local government structures in Wales. The Assembly had the opportunity to put in place a legislative consent motion that would have enabled that to take place. Such a motion was tabled by the Welsh Assembly Government, but they then chose not to support it, even though they had put it forward. As a result, the view of the Welsh Assembly was that police and crime panels should not form part of the local government structure in Wales. Instead, the PCPs will be freestanding bodies.
	I want to make it clear that in taking a power to appoint those freestanding bodies I will not be telling, instructing or forcing any authority to do anything. I will invite local authorities to nominate a member to the PCP for each force area, and if an authority fails to nominate a member, I will invite members directly while having regard to the political balance within the force area. I think that the amendments will ensure that the appropriate checks and balances on police and crime commissioners can apply in all force areas in England and in Wales.

Theresa May: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	We have also taken the opportunity in the Bill, as Members can see, to make improvements to the police complaints system. There are of course other important aspects to the Bill, notably those relating to licensing. I think that Labour's disastrous Licensing Act 2003 made the problem of binge drinking in this country worse, not better. Far from giving us the continental café culture that we were promised at the time, the Act did nothing to help police and local communities in their ongoing fight against alcohol-fuelled crime and disorder. That is why the Bill will help to turn the tide by ensuring that all those affected by licensed premises have a chance to have a say in the licensing process, allowing early morning restriction orders and the late-night levy on licensed premises opening after midnight to help pay for late-night policing and other services, such as taxi marshals or street wardens.
	We have brought forward an amendment to introduce locally set licensing fees so that the fees can achieve what they were intended to, which is to recover fully the costs of licensing authorities in discharging their duties. I think that local government will feel that this is long overdue. We have also repealed the previous Administration's legislation on alcohol disorder zones, and there was overwhelming support in our consultation for doing that. Those measures, together with a number of others, show that we are committed to stopping the harm caused by alcohol abuse.
	As well as measures to tackle alcohol abuse, we will be providing powers to crack down on the damage caused by so-called legal highs. The Bill introduces the power to make year-long temporary class drug orders, which will allow us to take swift action to ban temporarily substances that have been specifically developed to get around existing drugs legislation but that can still cause significant harm.
	I hope that the whole House will agree that for too long Parliament square has been subjected to unacceptable disruption and damage from the long-term encampment.

Theresa May: No, the whole House does not agree, and I should have pointed out that the hon. Gentleman made his views very clear in our previous debate and through the amendments that he spoke to.
	The Bill contains, I think, a tough but proportionate package of measures to deal with encampments and other disruptive activity, and we have responded to Members' concerns about the powers for authorised officers.
	The Bill also makes sensible changes to the procedures for obtaining an arrest warrant for universal jurisdiction offences. We have heard the objections from a small number of hon. Members on the matter, but the Government continue to believe that the requirement to seek the agreement of the Director of Public Prosecutions that a case has a realistic chance of success is a fair and proportionate measure.
	The Bill is a balanced package of measures to tackle real problems in our society. It includes directly elected police and crime commissioners, to give back people power over policing locally and to help to cut crime; tougher rules on licensing and drugs to help stop the harm that alcohol-fuelled disorder and legal highs can cause; and appropriate powers to restore the right to peaceful protest outside the mother of Parliaments, while removing the long-term encampments that cause so much damage, disruption and distress. We have had very good scrutiny of, and good debates about, the Bill. I believe that it is a very good Bill, and I commend it to the House.

Yvette Cooper: After 50 hours of debate and evidence, the Commons stage of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill has come to a close. The Members from all parts who endured the Committee stage will doubtless be delighted that in 19 minutes they will be released from custody. The Policing and Criminal Justice Minister will, I am sure, be relieved to have reached the end of this round of interrogation and hope to be released without charge, with his DNA destroyed and his fingerprints wiped.
	I thank all Opposition Members for their work, but I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), aka Station Sergeant Coaker, who has ably led our investigative team, and of course to my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), Custody Sergeant Tami, who has granted but few bail applications and always on the toughest terms.
	Members have had the pleasure of debating the details of pub drinking, the definitions of a duvet and whether a toothbrush counts as sleeping equipment, and during the passage of the Bill we have welcomed some of the Government's measures to which the Home Secretary referred, such as those on supporting local government, on licensing and on universal jurisdiction.
	Other measures still have us baffled, however. The last time the Home Secretary spoke in the House on legislation she told us that the Government offered
	"a chance to roll back the creeping intrusion of the state into our everyday lives, and to return individual freedoms to the heart of our legislation."-[ Official Report, 1 March 2011; Vol. 524, c. 205.]
	Today, she has defended a Bill that lets councils leap to the barricades when their byelaws are breached. She will support them in confiscating dogs that foul verges, guitars that are played near churches and even shoes that leave mud on the pavements. More importantly, she has supported a Bill that puts at risk centuries of independent policing, free from political interference, and concentrates considerable policing powers in the hands of one individual with hardly any checks and balances. That is hardly a defence of traditional British liberties.

Theresa May: I hesitate to interrupt what started as a comic turn by the right hon. Lady, but she knows full well that throughout the debate on the Bill we have been at great pains to ensure that there is operational independence for chief officers and for forces. We will defend that operational independence. The police and crime commissioners do not have policing powers; they have powers to ensure police accountability and that they respond to local people.

Yvette Cooper: That is what the right hon. Lady says, but where is the protocol? Time and again we have been told that there will be some sort of code of practice or some kind of protocol to reassure people that there will be operational independence, but where is it? We have not yet seen it, and the House is being asked to let the Bill go through without being given the opportunity to vote on such a protocol or agreement when it is reached. A draft has been given to the Association of Chief Police Officers, yet this week ACPO still raised some serious concerns about the way in which impartial policing will be protected, and that leaves us with considerable suspicions that she is not yet close to reaching an agreement with ACPO about how the operational protocol will perform. I have to say to the Home Secretary that asking the House to give consent to this Bill without providing crucial reassurances about the operational independence of our police is frankly irresponsible in the light of the traditional and historic British liberties that she has previously been so keen to defend.
	During these 50 hours of debate, the Bill has not changed in its fundamentals. This period follows one in which crime fell by over 40%, public confidence in policing went up, and substantial improvements were made in the fight against crime. Yet instead of building on those improvements made under the previous Labour Government, this Government instead want to launch a massive experiment in governance alongside the steepest cuts in many generations.
	The Government are putting considerable policing powers in the hands of individual politicians without any of the serious safeguards or checks and balances that are needed. We do not support the approach of elected police commissioners. During the passage of the Bill, we have tried to suggest ways of limiting the damage and providing additional checks and balances, yet each time they have been rejected. People want responsive and accountable policing, but they also want impartial policing that is accountable to the rule of law-a tradition secured in Britain since Peel. The Government face a grave challenge from the most senior police officers in the country, who have argued this week that that tradition is being put at risk by the Bill. ACPO said that
	"the developing framework of safeguards is too undeveloped and uncertain, and in several respects too weak, to be confident that it will effectively ensure that this Peelian principle will not be compromised."
	That is a very serious charge.
	We still wait for the protocol and for other explanations of how this will work. This is about the impartiality of our police force and the public perception of that impartiality. For the first time, policing powers will be concentrated in the hands of individual politicians, with hardly any checks and balances on what they do. The Home Secretary at least has to answer to Parliament. She has to persuade her Cabinet colleagues. She can be scrutinised, she can be challenged, and she can even be sacked if she makes a real mess of it-which I am sure, of course, that she will not-but a police and crime commissioner is there for four years, with just a toothless watchdog to keep guard in between.

Theresa May: The right hon. Lady is continuing to use the term "policing powers" in relation to the responsibilities of the police and crime commissioners. That is inaccurate and wrong. These individuals will not be "policing"-they will be elected to hold the chief constable to account to ensure that the local voice is heard and that what local people want in policing is being undertaken. There will be checks and balances through the police and crime panels. She talks about politicians having a relationship with the chief constable in relation to operational independence. Politicians already have a relationship with the chief constable through the police authority.

Nick Herbert: rose -

Yvette Cooper: My proposal is to ditch all of it, and that would save £100 million.  [ Interruption. ] I am afraid that it is. We have offered Government Members several ways to limit the damage of their proposals if they want to protect British freedoms. If they really want to do something sensible, they should save £100 million by ditching it altogether. That is what we will be voting for this evening.
	Most importantly, this drastic re-engineering at the top of policing-this massive experiment in governance-comes in the middle of the deepest cuts that police forces have had to face for many generations; at a time when 12,500 officers and 15,000 police staff will go; at a time when a report by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary shows that 95% of police officers are not in back-office work; and at a time when front-line services across the country are being hit. If the Home Secretary and the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice continue to deny that front-line services are being hit, they will just show how out of touch they are, not just with the police but with communities across the country who can already see changes happening in their areas and know exactly who is to blame. We know that neighbourhood police officers who want to stay in their jobs are being cut, and that steep cuts are being made in probation, youth services and action to prevent crime.
	We know why the Home Secretary really wants police and crime commissioners: so she has someone else to blame when it all goes badly wrong. These policies were not the Home Secretary's idea. It was not her idea to cut 20% from the police-it was the Chancellor's, but she did not fight to stop it. It was not her idea to bring in police and crime commissioners-it was the Prime Minister's, but she did not stand up against it. It was not her proposal to cut DNA use and limit the power of the police-it was the Deputy Prime Minister's, but she did not prevent it. She is ducking the big battles and is not standing up for people across the country, who need a Home Secretary who will defend their views. She is the Home Secretary, and in the end she carries the can. On Second Reading, she claimed that that crime would be cut as a result of these reforms. The truth is that she is starting to fear that the opposite is happening, and she needs someone to blame.
	The clouds are gathering over the Government's crime and policing plans, and we have raised the warning. We will vote against these plans today, just as we will vote against the police cuts next week. Ministers are creating a perfect storm; at some point it will blow, and it will be communities across the country who pay the price.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mark Reckless: As the only Member of this House who is a member of a police authority, I congratulate Ministers on this Bill and welcome it. The Home Secretary made it clear on Monday that she wanted elected commissioners "in charge". She said just now that commissioners will make sure that what local people want to happen in policing will happen. That is to be welcomed.
	Unfortunately, Opposition Members are on the wrong side of this debate. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), said that
	"ACPO is clearly telling the Minister that he needs to amend the Bill"-[ Official Report, 30 March 2011; Vol. 526, c. 404.]
	Apparently, the Association of Chief Police Officers thinks that
	"the Bill places too much emphasis on local considerations giving disproportionate power to the"
	elected commissioner. But it is this House that decides, not ACPO. The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice has said that we have to rebalance the tripartite system and put greater emphasis on the local and democratic element because too much power has gone to the centre. He was too diplomatic to say it, but ACPO has taken that power as much as the Home Office, and it needs to be rebalanced.
	We will attempt to reach agreement on this protocol, and Ministers are no doubt working hard on that. We believe, of course, that in individual investigations and arrests, there has to be complete independence for the police, and that politicians should have no influence in that. However, in wider issues such as policing policy, the budget and the priorities, it is surely right that there should be democratic control and oversight.

Steven Baker: I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks, and associate myself with them. I also welcome the way that he set out the law on operational independence yesterday. Does he agree that it is vital that senior police officers and Opposition Members accept the legitimacy of elected representatives ensuring that the public get the policing that they deserve?

Mark Reckless: Of course I accept that, and I thank my hon. Friend for his comments.
	In the short time available, I want to make one point about an aspect of the Bill that I disagree with and how it is to be implemented, and that is the setting of the precept. There is a great focus on having more local democratic control, but there is perhaps some misunderstanding about how the panel will work in relation to the precept.
	We have heard that Liberal Democrat Members want a strong panel, and that there is currently something called a veto in the Bill. However, the small print shows that the panel will have no veto on the precept. All that it will get to do is say, "We don't like this." The elected commissioner will have to take into account what it has said, but he can then impose what he wants. At the moment, it is the Secretary of State who is to have the power to intervene and hold a referendum, not the local panel. I hope that will be reconsidered and changed in the other place.
	When the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice explained the relevant regulations on Report, he said it would be for the panel to put forward an alternative, and then the public would decide. In Committee, however, he said that it would be for the police and crime commissioner to give an alternative that was not excessive, and then the referendum would be to choose between the two. The local people should be in charge-that is the focus of the Bill, and I hope the matter will be considered in the other place. I commend the Bill.

David Blunkett: Who would ever have believed that it would be a Conservative Home Secretary who took the Home Office back to the pre-Michael Howard era, when there was an overwhelming belief that neither the Home Secretary nor the Home Office had any part to play in reducing crime, co-ordination across boundaries or understanding the sophistication of organised criminality? Today, of course, e-crime and cybercrime can be added to that list.
	Who would have believed that a Conservative Home Secretary would oversee a 20% cut in policing in this country, or chide a Labour Opposition for being obsessed with police numbers? I was proud to be the Home Secretary for the four years when we increased the uniformed police service by 15,000 officers. That was what the communities that we represented were demanding, and that was what they got. That was why there was a 43% reduction in overall crime in this country, and a much greater reduction in burglary and car crime.
	Perhaps the Home Secretary could never in her wildest dreams have realised that she was going to come to the House and say that she could not present a protocol for the relationship between the new elected police and crime commissioners and chief constables, because the Government had not yet managed to put it together. They do not know what the relationship is going to be.
	The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice rightly quoted the document about accountability that I presented to the last Home Secretary but one. He was right to say that I was concerned about power lying where accountability was held, and that, of course, is with the chief constable, the leadership team and the neighbourhood commander who respond directly to the neighbourhood that they represent. I was proud to introduce the neighbourhood beat teams and police community support officers, which brought us close to our neighbourhoods.
	Now we are going to see total confusion, with policy decided by an elected police commissioner and delivery decided by a chief constable who has to do as they are told, and with no proper, organised cross-boundary working. There will be a breakdown of direct accountability, including in the role of elected councillors, and of the partnership approach that is so crucial to the reduction of crime and the engagement of the citizenry. That engagement is part of the process needed to ensure that we can continue to have the tremendous legacy that we left the current Government.

Julian Huppert: I will try to be very brief. I thank Ministers for the helpful discussions that they have had with us and for the fact that we have managed to improved the Bill. I thank them for agreeing to our suggestions on removing the power for council officials to use reasonable force in protests and on ensuring that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs plays a role in assisting on temporary banning orders. I thank them very much for agreeing to those requests, because that has improved the Bill.
	There are still some issues to discuss as the Bill continues through the Lords, but it is very good. Liberal Democrats stood on a manifesto commitment to bring democracy into such matters. Unlike the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), I think the public should have their say. Democracy is very important.
	I am particularly pleased that the Government propose to use a preferential voting system to elect the commissioner. That is a much fairer way of electing people who have such a critical role.
	I am also pleased that we are unwinding some of the disgraceful measures introduced by the previous Government to stop protests in Parliament square. Unlike the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), I do not believe that Parliament should be protected from the public. Parliament and the police should be accountable to them, which is what will now happen.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	 The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 161.

David Hanson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you have had a request for a statement, either tonight or tomorrow morning, from the Minister of State, Cabinet Office. In response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), he told the Environmental Audit Committee this afternoon:
	"we took the view collectively in Cabinet that we faced an immediate national crisis in the form of less growth and jobs than we needed",
	in relation to the recent Budget. We were not aware of those conditions before the Budget vote on Tuesday. The Minister accepts that we have an "immediate national crisis", so has he given any indication of the need for a statement? We face unemployment at a 17-year high, a contracting economy, increasing VAT, and a jobs growth crisis in Britain. If the Minister is discussing with the Environmental Audit Committee, he should come to the House to explain himself.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119 (11)),
	That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 6007/11, and the Addenda 1 and 2, relating to the draft Directive on the use of Passenger Name Record data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crimes; welcomes the opportunity to hold a Parliamentary debate on the criteria the Government will take into account when making its opt-in decision within the three month deadline under Protocol 21 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Treaty on the European Union; and endorses the Government's aim of working with other Member States to strengthen the security of EU citizens whilst also protecting their data by developing an effective EU passenger name record system. - ( Mr Dunne .)
	 Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(Mr Dunne.)

Helen Goodman: When I requested this debate I did not know about the Church Commissioners' announcement, and I wondered whether there should be a question mark in the title. However, I was just looking at the Order Paper, and I see that we now have a full stop, which is the right thing to have. I am absolutely delighted by the announcement that the Church Commissioners have made to secure in perpetuity the Zurbarans at Auckland castle.
	Every politician dreams of receiving a brown envelope containing leaked documents that they can reveal to the press, but when I received mine and saw that it contained proposals for the sale of these national treasures in my constituency I was really alarmed. I was clear that I did not want my constituency to be asset-stripped. Equally, I do not hold to the view that every cultural icon should reside within the orbit of the M25.
	Jonathan Ruffer has most generously provided the money to keep the Zurbarans in Auckland castle. When I read the interview with him in  The Spectator and saw his emotional response to the story, I felt vindicated that I had given the documents to  The Northern Echo. I hope that the Under-Secretary will note the importance of having a free, independent-minded press that can speak up for local communities at all times.
	Many people have been thanked over the past 24 hours, but I particularly want to thank the anonymous person who sent me those documents. We will never know who it was, but they took a risk, and it was definitely a risk worth taking. I know that their action annoyed the Church Commissioners, and I can understand that, but the time and effort that have gone into solving the problem mean that we now have a much better solution than we would have had a year ago. I hope that the Church Commissioners feel that as well. Obviously, it is the mission of the Church to provide pastoral care at parish level, but it is also its mission to speak the great truths about humanity and to use art and stories to do that. Now we have the opportunity to do both those things.
	In making the case for keeping the pictures in Auckland castle, and setting out our vision for a regenerated Bishop Auckland, we knocked on many doors. We were immensely strengthened and supported by the sympathetic hearing that we received from everyone from the Archbishop of Canterbury down. All the bishops were immensely supportive, as were the directors of the British Museum and the National Gallery. Another positive outcome is the fact that we have built up a well of support that will help us in progressing the project to create something very beautiful in Bishop Auckland.

Helen Goodman: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support; I know that he has spoken about this matter in our region.
	This is an important day, because the pictures have historical significance. Francisco de Zurbaran was a Spanish counter-reformation painter whose paintings can be seen across the world. I went to Chartres in the new year and saw one of his paintings there. Of course, it was in the bishop's residence. The collection in Auckland castle is particularly special because 12 of the 13 paintings belong together. The series is known as Jacob and his 12 sons. The long dining room at the castle was specially modified to hold the pictures.
	Bishop Trevor, who bought the pictures, had previously lived in Downing street, but he became Bishop of Durham in the middle of the 18th century. He did a lot of work at Auckland castle. He built a deer house, which probably meant that the deer were better housed than the tenants at that time, and he bought those fantastic pictures. It is believed that he did that out of solidarity with the Jewish community. Like all the Anglican bishops, he supported the legislation to extend the civil rights of the Jewish community, and he preached on the suffering of those in the Jewish diaspora. When the so-called Jew Bill was repealed by the Tories, the bishop bought the pictures and hung them in the long dining room at Auckland castle.
	The director of the British Museum, Neil MacGregor, who had the paintings displayed in London in 1994, has called them the
	"first multicultural document of Britain".
	That is why, if these paintings had been lost, moved or exported, it would have been a loss not only to the town of Bishop Auckland and our region, but to the nation. That is why I am extremely grateful to Jonathan Ruffer for his extraordinary generosity, which has enabled the establishment of a trust that will keep the paintings in the castle in perpetuity.
	I would like to ask the Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), if he has any more details about the objects of the trust or who the trustees might be. Does he know how many of the priests employed through the money that Mr Ruffer donated will be in the Durham diocese?
	The research undertaken by John McDonnell, QC, in recent months has shown that Bishop Trevor undoubtedly intended the pictures to stay at Auckland castle. As a result of this development, the legal issues surrounding the pictures will not be tested at this juncture. I want to note, however, that the case for incorporating the pictures as part of the grade I listing at Auckland castle still stands.
	I want to pay particular tribute to Bob McManners, who is the chair of the Bishop Auckland Civic Society. He wrote a book about the history of the paintings and it turned out to be a fantastically valuable campaigning tool, which played a vital part in the success of this campaign.
	The importance of inter-faith dialogue has obviously grown in the last 250 years, while our understanding of the difficulties and dilemmas of building a successful multicultural society has also developed. As well as having the paintings in Auckland castle as a symbol of commitment to inter-faith dialogue and multiculturalism, I hope there will also be space to allow people of all different faiths to meet together.
	The land on which Auckland castle stands was gifted by King Canute to the Church. I particularly like this detail, because my mum, who is Danish, comes from the same village as King Canute. Since 1138, the bishops of Durham have made Auckland castle their first residence. Over the years, the bishops of Durham grew in power and authority, and temporal power backed up spiritual power. County Durham was the last place in England to send Members of Parliament to Westminster. Some people think that politics in our area is still somewhat behind that of the rest of the country!
	What will attract people to visit the castle is not just its very interesting history, as the main reason people will come is that it is in a fantastically beautiful spot. Auckland castle is a Gothic building, with probably the largest private chapel in Europe, and it is situated in beautiful park land on a wooded promontory overlooking the river Wear.
	The partnership proposed between Durham county council and the National Trust is a really positive development, alongside the generous donations of other individuals and other institutions. Another question for the Second Church Estates Commissioner is whether the Church Commissioners will be open to the possibility of involving other people in the partnership. I am thinking, in particular, of the contribution that the World Monuments Fund might be able to make.
	I had originally thought that the Second Church Estates Commissioner rather than the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), would respond to this debate. I hope that the Minister is in his place to tell us that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is going to make a financial contribution as well as a moral one, so I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
	The attraction of this project is that it is multi-layered: it is of historic interest, religious interest and artistic interest. Particularly exciting is the offer made by the director of the National Gallery, Dr Nicholas Penny, to lend paintings to Auckland castle so that we can turn it into an artistic centre.
	For the people of Bishop Auckland this is obviously a question of identity, but it also presents a great opportunity to regenerate a town that has suffered significantly in recent years. Unemployment has been high, and several of our wards are among the 10% that are the most deprived in the country. It is easy to underestimate the number of jobs that can be created from tourism because they are generally in small businesses, but there are already 12,000 such jobs in County Durham, and tourism brings in £650 million a year. I am sure that we can we build on that. It would be fantastic if we could create a trail from Lindisfarne down through Jarrow to Durham and on to Bishop Auckland, repeating the journey of St Cuthbert's shrine.
	I want to thank many people for contributing to today's happy outcome, not least the Second Church Estates Commissioner-as well as the secretary to the Church Commissioners, whom I see sitting in the Box. They came to Bishop Auckland in the snow, they pushed my car, and they listened to what was said by people in Woodhouse Close about why they wanted to hold on the paintings and have public access to the castle.
	I thank my parliamentary colleagues in both Houses for their support, and I thank Durham county council, which has done a great deal of work but has a great deal more to do. I thank people throughout the country who have written to us and prayed for us. I thank Barbara Laurie, Marjorie Kellett, Ann Golightly and the many others who organised the petition. Most of all, however, I thank my constituents for defending their heritage so staunchly. After 900 years a Bishop of Durham will still live at the heart of our community, which is fantastic, because you can't take the Bishop out of Bishop Auckland.

Tony Baldry: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) on securing this timely debate, and thank her for her kind personal comments. She has been a tireless and dedicated campaigner on this issue on behalf of those who live close to Auckland castle and those who come to enjoy it, its grounds and, especially, its paintings. As she made clear, both she and the people of Bishop Auckland, along with those in the wider region, are delighted about today's announcement by the Church Commissioners that they are working to keep the Zurbaran paintings in Auckland Castle.
	As Second Church Estates Commissioner, I am well aware of the strength and intensity of feeling that the castle and its paintings inspire in the hon. Lady and her constituents, and indeed in the diocese and the wider Church. It has been my pleasure to work with the hon. Lady on this issue in recent months. I was privileged to visit her constituency last November to view the paintings, along with other representatives of the Church Commissioners.
	As the hon. Lady said, it is proposed that the 13 paintings by the Spanish artist Francisco de Zurbaran that currently hang in the Long Dining Room of Bishop Auckland castle should stay there, thanks to-I do not think that we can underline this too much-an extraordinary act of generosity by Jonathan Ruffer, chief executive of Ruffer. The paintings will be sold to a new trust, which will have a specific obligation to ensure their preservation and continued public display at Auckland castle. We are immensely grateful to him for an act of generosity that will ensure continued public access to those works of art in their natural home.
	While I am giving credit where it is due, let me take the opportunity to thank Sir Paul Nicholson, Lord Lieutenant of Durham, for his chairmanship of the working party; Christopher Higgins, Vice-Chancellor and warden of Durham university; the Right Rev. Mark Bryant, Bishop of Jarrow; and all the others whose help, advice and assistance in recent months have proved invaluable in securing this resolution. I also thank my fellow Church Commissioners who have engaged so actively in the matter.
	Although the Church Commissioners are significant owners of land and property, they are not, by and large, in the business of owning, maintaining and displaying paintings. I have made that point in the House before during questions on this issue, and I will return to it in a moment. However, I should first make a short detour. The Church Commissioners as we know them today came about in 1948 as the result of the merger of two bodies: Queen Anne's Bounty and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The older of these, Queen Anne's Bounty, was created in 1704 out of concern for the poverty of the clergy and the disrepair of their parsonages. Over a century later, Parliament created the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to manage the historic assets in order to make financial provision for the Church's mission in areas of need and opportunity as well as to fund bishops and some cathedral costs, and in order to oversee a reorganisation of dioceses and cathedrals. Financing clergy pensions came much later.
	The theme running throughout our 300-year history, which is very much alive today, is of supporting the Church's mission throughout England. Today, the commissioners are responsible for all clergy pensions earned up to 1998, the stipends and working costs of all the Church of England's bishops, the housing costs of all diocesan bishops and support of their local and national ministries, cathedral grants, stipends to cathedral deans and canons-and the list goes on. Currently, the Church Commissioners manage an investment portfolio of about £5 billion, largely in property and shares, which is derived from the Church's historic resources. From this sum, they are able to contribute about 16p in every pound to the cost of the Church of England's mission, with most of the balance coming from the generous giving of today's parishioners. The majority of the commissioners' other assets are in land and property, and as such they are not readily available to fund the day-to-day running of the Church of England. As a result of their investment performance, the Church Commissioners have distributed £31 million more each year to the Church for the past 10 years than if they had performed as an average fund. The point I would make in connection with all of this is that, although the Church of England owns and maintains about 16,000 places of worship and is responsible for 45% of this country's grade I listed buildings-and so is arguably the nation's leading heritage organisation, a point my hon. Friend the Minister and colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport well understand-the holding of heritage assets, of which the Zurbaran paintings are a prime example, has never been central to the commissioners' asset portfolio.
	The hon. Lady described very well the history of how the Zurbarans came to Auckland castle. The £125 spent by Bishop Trevor in 1756 was clearly a very worthwhile investment, because what it bought is now worth £15 million. With the moneys released by the sale of the Zurbaran paintings to the proposed trust, it will be possible to fund 10 additional clergy in perpetuity and to offer ministry to deprived areas of the nation. Doubtless some of the benefit of this arrangement will be enjoyed by communities in the north-east.
	It is a matter of public record that the Church Commissioners have been reviewing the suitability of Auckland castle as the home of the Bishop of Durham and as the base for his local and national ministry. As part of this, the commissioners have been in discussions with representatives of the diocese and other local people. With the question of the Zurbaran paintings settled, the Church Commissioners now intend to work towards a future for the castle that not only maintains the strong and historic working link between it, the Bishop and the diocese, but that helps the site become, in the words of the hon. Lady herself,
	"the focus for the development of tourism and an engine of regeneration."
	I look forward to working with her as future plans develop, and with heritage bodies, the county council, the people of Bishop Auckland and the Heritage Lottery Fund. The hon. Lady mentioned other organisations, and, indeed, other heritage organisations wish to be involved with this regeneration project, which I am sure would be welcomed.
	I should stress that Auckland castle will remain the base for the Bishop of Durham's ministry; he will continue to work there and pray in the chapel there, so it will be the centre of his work. I should also stress that what happens at Auckland castle sets no precedent in respect of the continued assessments and feasibility studies of all bishops' residences. The commissioners continue to have a responsibility to ensure that the Church's diocesan bishops are housed appropriately so as to enable them to fulfil their ministry locally and nationally. They are subject to a regular review process, and that process will continue, with decisions made on an individual basis.
	I conclude by quoting from a letter that appeared in the  Church Times on 25 March 2011 from the Rev. Richard Deimel, a local vicar in Bishop Auckland. Having been unhelpfully misquoted by a different newspaper-we might all sympathise with that-he wanted to set the record straight. Given that he makes some insightful and eminently sensible points, they are worth repeating. He said:
	"The question of the sale of the Zurbarán paintings from Auckland Castle is complex and sensitive. I am a Vicar of five parishes from the edge of Bishop Auckland to Hamsterley forest. People here feel that they have very little significant heritage or art or architecture in their community. Many are very proud of the paintings and the castle. They find meaning and identity in their story. It would be incredibly damaging, indeed a bit like a kick in the teeth from the church and the state, if these left the North East or went into private hands.
	I fully support attempts to build a partnership to retain them in some kind of shared ownership. This would be a real boost to the local community and economy. It would, also release the Church from the responsibility of being a custodian of heritage, because that is not the purpose of the Church."
	I agree with all those sentiments and I hope that those in the north-east will feel that that is what we have managed to deliver on. I have confidence that what the commissioners have announced today will reassure not only Rev. Richard Deimel, but the hon. Lady and her constituents, and all those petitioners in the region and beyond who have made their concerns known. What has been achieved is, I hope, in the best interests of the north-east, the Church and the Church in the north-east.

Edward Vaizey: This is one of those rare debates when the House can unite in unalloyed joy and pay tribute to the extraordinary efforts of a number of people and organisations in producing an extraordinarily good news story. Some of the speeches we have heard have, to a certain extent, sounded like Oscar speeches, because many people have had to be thanked. Of course the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) could not thank herself, so let me thank her for all her efforts in securing Zurbaran's paintings. I had not quite appreciated the vigour of her campaign and I listened to her speech with great joy as I heard what an extraordinary campaign she had led. When the roll call-perhaps I should say the battle honours-of those who saved the Zurbaran paintings comes to be written, I hope that her name will be prominent.
	Francisco de Zurbaran, a contemporary of Velazquez and El Greco, was honorary painter to King Philip IV of Spain, who hailed him as the king of painters. Although fashion turned against him, his reputation was restored by Napoleon Bonaparte, who acquired many of his paintings, some of which are on display in the Louvre. As the hon. Lady pointed out, the Zurbarans at Auckland castle came there by way of Bishop Trevor. They were completed in the 1640s and turned up again only in 1720, in the possession of Sir William Chapman, a director of the ill-fated South Sea Company. So sometimes a financial crash can have a silver lining, because they were auctioned in 1756 and bought by Bishop Trevor, the Bishop of Durham.
	As the hon. Lady pointed out, Bishop Trevor had persuaded his fellow bishops in the House of Lords to support the "Jew Bill"-the Jewish Naturalisation Bill-which would allow Jewish immigrants to naturalise as British citizens. The support of the bishops proved crucial to the Bill being passed. Bishop Trevor bought 12 of the 13 Zurbarans now on display in Auckland castle for £124 to demonstrate his sympathy for the disfranchised Jews following the repeal of that legislation in 1755. Somehow one painting-the painting of Benjamin-eluded him. Bishop Trevor was so desperate to complete his set of Zurbarans that he commissioned the foremost portrait painter of the day, Arthur Pond, to paint a facsimile of the final one in the series, for which he paid £21.
	I know that the Church Commissioners understood the important considerations and strength of public feeling over the future of the paintings, so I was as delighted as anyone to learn what had happened. The Church Commissioners have announced that they are working on exciting new plans for the future of Auckland castle and I do not think we should lose sight of that. Not only have the Zurbaran paintings been saved, but the partnership with Durham county council and the National Trust will, we hope, establish innovative uses for the castle and grounds in a new venture that would not only continue to care for the paintings but enable much greater public access for a wider range of activities.
	I must obviously take this opportunity to express official thanks on behalf of the Government to Jonathan Ruffer for his donation. It is particularly astonishing given that, according to the article in today's edition of  The Spectator, he brought them sight unseen but I gather he is in the north-east this weekend and will see the paintings he has saved for the nation and the north-east. I commend the article in  The Spectator as showing an example of what it means to be a philanthropist.
	May I also thank the Rothschild Foundation, which has donated £1 million towards an endowment for Auckland castle, and Lord Rothschild himself? The cultural life of this nation would be significantly poorer without the work of someone like Jacob Rothschild, not only because of the money that he gives but because of the money that he encourages others to give. I do not know Jonathan Ruffer, but he is a self-effacing man and he said of Jacob Rothschild in the interview today:
	"The battle honours in all of this go to him, not me".
	There is certainly some truth in that, because Jacob Rothschild has been at the heart of our cultural world for many decades and continues to be an incredibly important figure.
	May I also thank the National Gallery, which I know is looking to help and support this venture-possibly with loans from its collection? I also thank the Church Commissioners, who continue to be in conversation with the Heritage Lottery Fund, the Art Fund and a number of other parties to consider how further funds can be raised. My Department, I am afraid, is not in a position to give direct financial support, but we have been kept closely in touch with developments and we will continue to work with all parties to broker some support. It might also be appropriate to pay tribute to Hillary Bauer, who is herself a cultural icon in my Department and has done a great deal to support these developments.
	This is an unequivocally good news story. Joy has almost come out of the heavens, one could say. Jonathan Ruffer stands testament to philanthropy in this country; the hon. Lady stands testament to a campaigning MP for her constituency; the Church Commissioners stand testament to an organisation that is prepared to listen and negotiate before making a final decision; and the work of Durham county council, the National Trust, the Heritage Lottery Fund, the Art Fund and everyone else involved stands testament to what can be achieved by co-operation.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.